/2  .  oS, 

from  f 0e  feifirarp  of 

(professor  ^amuef  (tttiffer 

m  QUemorp  of 

3ubc$e  J^amuef  (M^tiffer  QSrecftinribcje 

(preeenfeb  61? 

^amuef  (Jtliffer  QBrecftinribge  feong 

to  f($e  feifirarp  of 

(prtnceton  Cfleofogtcaf  ^emtnarg 


BX  1765  .F2  L4 
Traevern,  J.  F.  M.  1754- 
1842. 

An  answer  to  the  Rev.  G.  S 
Faber's  Difficulties  of 


SOL 


ANSWER 


TO  THE 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM. 


AN 


aif^W^! 


TO  THE 


REV.  G.  S.  FABER'S 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROM  ANIS3I, 

BY  THE 

Right  Rev.  J.  F.  M.  TREVERN,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  OF  STRASBOURG, 

LATE  BP.  OF  AIRE. 


TRANSLATED  BY  THE 

REV.  F.  C.  HUSENBETH. 


"  Qui  estis?  Unde  vcnistis?  ....  llabeo  origincs  lirmas  nb  ipsis  autoribus 
quorum  res  fuit:  Ego  sum  hares  Apostolorura  ....  vos  exhaercdave- 
runt  semper  et  abdicaverunt  ut  extraneos,  ut  inimicos." 

Tertullian.  L.  dc  Prescript,  c.  37. 


Baltimore: 

PUBLISHED  BY  F.  LUCAS,  Jr.  138  MARKET  STREET. 


Tenenda  nobis  est  Christiana  religio,  et  ejus  Ecclesiae  commu- 
nicatio,  quae  Catholica  est,  et  Catholica  nominator,  non  solum  a 
suis,  verum  etiam  ab  omnibus  inimicis. 

8.  Augustin,  de  vera  Relig.  Cap.  VIL 


lucas  fc  D«aver,  print* 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTICE. 


In  presenting  the  following  work  to  the  public,  it 
may  be  requisite  to  state  the  circumstances  which 
have  led  to  its*:composition.  They  are  briefly  these. 
Some  years  ago  the  Abbe  Trevcrn,  formerly  Vicar- 
general  of  Langres,  being  an  emigrant  to  England  in 
consequence  of  the  French  Revolution,  published  in 
London  a  French  work,  in  two  volumes,  entitled  "Dis- 
cussion Amicale  sur  UEglise  Anglieane,  et  en  general 
sur  la  Reformation,  dediee  au  clerge  de  toutes  les  Com- 
munions Protestantes"  When  the  London  edition  of 
this  work  was  exhausted,  its  learned  and  highly  re- 
spected Author,  being  then  in  France,  and  raised  to 
the  episcopal  see  of  Aire,  published  a  second  edition 
of  it  in  Paris,  in  the  year  1824.  An  English  transla- 
tion of  this  valuable  work  has  not  yet  appeared,  but 
one  is  on  the  point  of.  being  published  by  the  Rev. 
Wm,  Richmond,  of  Swinnerton  Park. 

It  was  not  till  the  year  1826,  that  any  attempt  was 
made  to  refute  the  above  masterly  composition.  In 
that  year  there  appeared  a  work  from  the  pen  of  a 
clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  of  well  known 
talent  and  erudition,  the  Rev.  G.  S.  Faber,  B.  D. 
Rector  of  Long  Newton,  bearing  for  title  "  The  Diffi- 
culties of  Romanism."     No  sooner   did  the  worthy 


vi  INTRODUCTORY  NOTICE. 

prelate  become  acquainted  with  this  work — which 
professes  to  adopt  his  Lordship's  Discussion  Amicale 
as  a  text-book,  and  to  furnish  a  refutation  of  it,  than 
he  applied  himself  with  indefatigable  exertion  to  vin- 
dicate his  own  book,  and  answer  the  alleged  Diffi- 
culties of  Mr.  Faber's — and  this  amid  the  confusion, 
anxiety,  and  pressure  of  affairs  of  every  kind  atten- 
dant upon  his  Lordship's  being  translated  from  the  see 
of  Aire  to  that  of  Strasbourg.  The  good  bishop  trans- 
mitted his  work  in  M.  S.  as  he  wrote  it,  to  the  transla- 
tor, who  now  confidently  presents  it  to  the  public. 


CONTENTS. 


PACE 

Introduction,     ------         _         -         -         5 

PART  FIRST. 

Oil  the  first  three  Letters  of  the  Discussion  Amicale. 

The  first  Letter, 13 

Ths  second  Letter,    -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -15 

The  third  Letter, 20 

PART  SECOND. 

On  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

Chapter  the  first,  _--__---()."> 

Chapter  the  second — Proofs  from  Scripture,      -  74 

Chapter  the  third — Proofs  from  Tradition,    -        -        -        -  v  84 
First  General  Proof — the  Discipline  of  the  Secret.  -        -  91 

Second  General  Proof  from  the  Liturgies,  -  117 

Extracts  from  the  Liturgies.  ------         12$ 

General  Proof  from  the  Catecheaes. 

Chapter  the  fourth — Particular  Proofs  from  the  Fathers,       -  14^ 

St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,     ------  166 

Theodoret,        -_-_--.--  168 

St.  Chrvsostom  and  Sr.  Ausustin,   -----  1 7-i 


>iil  CONTENTS. 

PART  THIRD. 

PAGB 

Succinct  Review  of  the   Difficxrfties  of  Romanism,        -         -  193 

Introductory  Statement,     ------  199 

Celibacy, 202 

Tradition, 203 

Real  Presence,      ---------  206 

Characters  of  the  first  Reformers,      -  216 

Confession,    -- 225 

Satisfaction,       -         -         -         -         -        -         -         -  230 

Indulgences,  ---------  234 

Prayers  for  the  Dead — Purgatory,       -  239 
Invocation  of  the  Saints,         -        -        -        -        -        -249 

Relics,       ---------  253 

Sign  of  the  Cross, -  254 

Church  of  England,  -------  256 

Supremacy,   ---------  258 

Re-union,  ---------  261 

Inquisition,    ---------  266 

Intolerance, 271 

Recapitulation,      - 275 

Conclusion,        _---,.__-  37G 


ANSWER 


TO 


FADER'S    DIFFICULTIES 


OF 


ROMANISM. 


My  dear  sir, 

You  have  so  earnestly  requested  me  to  reply  to 
the  work  lately  published  by  the  Rev.  G.  S.  Faber, 
B.  D.  against  my  Discussion  Jlmicale,  that  I  should  be 
truly  deserving  of  reproach  if  I  refused  to  comply. 
The  only  difficulty  attending  your  request  arose  from 
my  finding  it  impossible  to  reconcile  the  labour  re- 
quired, with  the  occupations  of  governing  a  diocese. 
My  necessary  resolve  was  to  interrupt  the  latter  for 
a  time,  when  I  reflected,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  re- 
futation had  appeared  to  you  peremptory  and  conclusive, 
and  understood,  on  the  other,  that  my  silence  would  be 
interrupted  by  your  countrymen  as  the  tacit  avowal  of 
a  defeat.  You  assure  me  that  the  attack  directed  in 
my  person  against  the  doctrine  I  profess,  issued  from 
a  celebrated  pen,  from  the  first  even  of  your  contro- 
vertists.  Well,  sir,  I  rejoice  with  you  for  it:  the 
reputation  and  talents  of  such  an  antagonist  will  only 
add  greater  splendour  to  the  truth.  I  trust  that  ere 
long  you  will  see  the  arguments  of  your  renowned 
theologian  fall  before  you,  one  after  another,  without 
force  or  effect;  and  the  proofs  developed  in  my  work 
remain  still  unshaken  after  the  appearance  of  his. 
And  then  I  hope  you  will  yourself  conclude  that  the 
2 


10  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  impenetrable  to  the 
shafts  of  its  enemies. 

In  the  first  letter  you  did  me  the  honour  to  address 
to  me,  I  was  informed  that  your  learned  friend  had 
engaged  to  refute  my  work;  that  he  purposed  follow- 
ing me  step  by  step,  and  shewing  on  each  point  that  I 
had  uniformly  built  upon  a  vain  illusion,  by  believing 
myself  always  supported  by  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Primitive  Church.  This  plan  was  certainly  the  only 
methodical  one,  and  at  the  same  time  the  fairest  and 
best  calculated  to  exhibit  the  truth  with  the  strongest 
evidence.  You  assured  me  that  such  was  the  plan  to 
be  adopted  by  my  antagonist.  Imagine  then  my  sur- 
prise, my  dear  sir,  when  as  I  looked  over  his  refuta- 
tion, I  found  that  instead  of  proceeding  step  by  step 
after  me,  instead  of  adhering  to  the  arrangement, 
which  I  had  adopted  for  the  various  questions,  he  had 
preferred  abandoning  it  altogether,  displacing  the 
questions,  and  putting  those  in  front,  which  ought  only 
to  have  appeared  in  the  rear.  A  writer  of  the  pene- 
tration you  profess  to  find  in  him,  ought  undoubtedly 
to  have  been  sensible  how  much  strength  is  acquired 
by  proofs  when  properly  connected  with  each  other, 
and  how  much  they  lose  by  being  separated. 

Although  Mr.  Faber  and  myself  are  widely  divided 
in  opinion,  the  same  motive  has  led  each  to  take  up 
the  pen — that  of  convincing  your  countrymen:  our 
great  opposition  is  in  our  respective  objects.  Mine 
was  to  make  them  sensible  of  the  reasons,  which  ought 
to  lead  them  back  to  unity;  his  on  the  contrary,  was 
to  exhibit  those,  which  might  still  farther  remove  them 
from  it.  I  strive  to  persuade  to  re-union:  he  endea- 
vours to  perpetuate  dissension.  I  consider  that  you 
would  gain  every  thing  by  becoming  again  what  }Tou 
once  were;  he  thinks  on  the  contrary,  that  you  have 
every  thing  to  lose,  if  you  do  not  remain  what  you 
are.  Which  of  us  has  the  more  effectually  pleaded 
his  cause,  or  rather  your  cause?     Our  judges  are  those 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  H 

for  whom  we  have  written.  Our  books  are  the  cause 
to  be  tried.  Let  them  not  consider  their  authors,  but 
weigh  well  their  respective  arguments. 

In  the  comparison  I  solicit,  I  see  at  once  that  my 
antagonist  has  a  powerful  advantage  over  me;  he  ex- 
presses himself  in  the  language  of  the  interested  party, 
while  I  write  in  a  language  to  which  the  greater  num- 
ber are  strangers.  I  entreat  those  nevertheless  who 
understand  both,  to  compare  the  Discussion  Amicale 
with  the  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  and  impartially  to 
weigh  our  proofs.  This  labour  will  no  doubt  cost 
them  application  and  patience.  I  solicit  them  to  be- 
stow it  for  the  honour  of  truth,  in  the  name  of  their 
dearest  interests,  of  their  happiness  in  this  world  and 
the  next. 

Do  not  expect  me,  sir,  to  enter  at  length  upon  all 
the  questions,  which  divide  us;  upon  the  motives,  which 
establish  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  faith;  its  conform- 
ity, whether  with  the  natural  light  of  human  reason,  or 
with  the  text  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church:  consequently  the 
necessity  of  adopting  it,  namely,  of  renouncing  a  pre- 
tended reformation,  equally  null  in  its  establishment, 
and  erroneous  in  its  doctrine.  This  would  be  a  labour 
far  exceeding  the  leisure  allowed  by  my  habitual  oc- 
cupations; and  would  be  to  recommence  what  I  have 
already  published,  and  transcribe  the  Discussion  ^mi- 
celle almost  throughout.  It  is  a  more  simple  plan  to  re- 
fer you  to  that  work,  by  pointing  out  the  volume  and 
page*  You  will  there  find  the  proofs  I  have  deve- 
loped on  the  contested  points;  I  make  bold  to  assure 
you  that  they  still  remain  in  all  their  strength,  and 
that  the  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  however  specious  it 
may  have  appeared  to  you,  has  not  made  any  real  at- 
tack upon  them. 

•These  will  be  cited  from  the  more  correct  edition,  published  in 
Paris,  by  Potey,  No.  46.  Rue  du  Bac.  1824. 


12  ANSWER  TO  THE 

I  shall  confine  myself,  therefore,  to  placing  again 
before  your  view  some  of  the  more  important  articles, 
with  an  analysis  of  the  proofs  and  objections,  which 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Faber  brings  against  them.  To  this  I 
shall  dedicate  the  first  and  second  parts  of  his  Reply, 
they  will  suffice,  I  trust,  to  justify  my  assertions,  to 
rectify  the  judgment  you  have  formed  of  them,  and 
to  confirm  the  triumph  of  the  Catholic  Creed.  In  the 
third  part,  I  shall  take  a  review  of  the  false  supposi- 
tions, wrong  interpretations,  mistakes,  reproaches,  dis- 
position to  ill-humour,  and  hostile  indications,  which  I 
have  unfortunately,  but  too  frequently,  met  with  in 
The  Difficulties  of  Romanism. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  13 


PART  THE  FIRST. 


ON  THE  FIRST  THREE  LETTERS  OF  THE  DISCUSSION 

AMICALE. 


The  first  Letter  places  before  the  reader  an  histori- 
cal summary  of  the  establishment  of  the  Church  ol 
England.  It  exhibits  Elizabeth,  authorized  by  her 
Parliament,  driving  out  of  their  sees  those  Bishops  who, 
with  a  single  exception,  opposed  her  assumptions;  and 
replacing  them  with  men  servile  and  accommodating, 
chosen  from  the  second  order  of  the  clergy.  Dux 
femina  facti.  It  is  nevertheless  incontestable  that 
Jesus  Christ  confided  the  government  of  his  Church,  as 
well  as  the  teaching  of  his  doctrine,  to  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors,  and  by  no  means  to  the  potentates 
of  the  earth.  It  is  true  therefore  that  a  radical  defect 
of  competent  authority  rendered  null  the  work  of  Eli- 
zabeth, and  her  two  houses  of  parliament,  who  formed, 
if  you  will,  a  parliamentary  and  royal  church,  but  as- 
suredly not  one  canonically  Christian.* 

Apply  again  with  me,  sir,  to  the  unhappy  schism 
of  1559,  what  your  learned  doctor  wrote  against  that 
of  1689,  and  which  ought,  with  much  greater  reason, 
to  have  disgusted  him  with  the  assumption  of  Elizabeth. 
Listen  to  this  able  theologian:  "A  decree  was  made  by 
a  senate  of  laymen,  that  the  bishops  who  refused  to 
take  the  new  oaths  should  be  ejected  out  of  their 
places.  The  time  for  taking  them  being  expired,  and 
these  fathers  refusing  them,  they  are  deprived  of  their 
palaces,  revenues,  in  short  of  all  rights  annexed  to  their 

*  Humanam  conati  suntfacere  Ecclesiam,  would  be  here  repeated 
by  St.  Cyprian.     (Ep.  52.) 


14  ANSWER  TO  THE 

episcopal  office.  Hitherto  we  complained  not.  Let 
the  secular  hand  reassume,  if  it  pleases,  what  it  has 
bestowed  upon  the  Church.  This  may  hurt  the  tem- 
poral estates  of  the  bishops,  but  can  never  affect  the 
consciences  of  subjects:  for  Christ  has  laid  no  obliga- 
tion upon  us  to  assert  the  legal  rights  of  bishops,  in 
opposition  to  the  magistrate;  but  certainly  he  has 
obliged  us  to  assert  those  rights,  which  he  bimself  be- 
stowed upon  the  Church,  in  order  to  preserve  it  under 
persecution;  and  which  no  earthly  power  ever  gave,  or 
was  able  to  give.  And  yet  the  violence  of  our  adver- 
saries proceeded  so  far!  Our  reverend  fathers  were 
driven  at  last  from  the  very  cure  of  souls;  altars  oppo- 
site to  theirs  erected,  and  bishops,  of  an  adverse  party, 
thrust  into  their  places.  Though  they  were  alive, 
their  seats  were  filled,  and  filled  by  colleagues,  before 
they  were  vacant,  before  their  predecessors  were  de- 
prived of  episcopal  power  by  bishops,  who  had  au- 
thority to  do  it.  Upon  this  account  we  looked  upon 
the  obedience  we  owed  them  to  be  still  valid,  nor 
could  we  transfer  it  to  their  successors,  who  had  de- 
parted from  Catholic  unity,  from  Christ  himself,  and 
all  his  benefits,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  St.  Cy- 
prian's age"* 

Such  is,  word  for  word,  the  history  of  the  deplora- 
ble overthrow  effected  in  1559:  and  thus  ought  all  those 
to  have  spoken  respectfully,  but  firmly,  whose  misfor- 
tune it  was  to  witness  it.  Such  is  the  language  of 
every  man  of  enlightened  understanding,  who  knows 
what  are  true  canonical  principles — the  distinction  of 
the  two  powers,  and  their  boundaries — what  belongs 
to  the  one  and  to  the  other.  It  will  ever  be  the  mani- 
fest condemnation  of  Elizabeth  and  her  parliament. 
Mr.  Faber  appears  to  have  been  sensible  of  this,  since 
he  has  not  attempted  to  contradict  it.  He  has  done 
honour  to  his  judgment  and  prudence,  by  keeping  si- 

•Dodwell  on  the  late  Schism.    London,  1704,  pp.  4,  50 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  15 

lence  upon  the  conclusions  at  the  end  of  my  first  letter. 
Those  alone  ought  to  suffice  at  this  day  to  bring  back 
England  to  unity.  The  establishment  of  Iter  Church, 
once  found  to  be  null  in  its  origin,  will  be  null  for  ever. 
Two  centuries  and  a  half  have  already  passed  over 
the  actual  state  of  things:  ten  more  might  pass,  but 
they  would  never  render  that  valid  and  legitimate, 
which  was  not  so  the  first  day  of  its  existence.  There 
is  no  prescription  against  Heaven. 

After  having  related  the  origin  of  your  Established 
Church,  and  shewn  its  essential  defect,  I  pass  in  my 
second  Letter  to  the  examination  of  its  doctrine.  The 
end  of  my  whole  discussion  is  to  shew — 1st.  That  an 
absolute  necessity,  stronger  than  every  obstacle  and 
repugnance,  renders  it  obligatory  to  put  an  end  to  the 
schism,  by  returning  to  the  mother  Church.  2dly.  To 
prove  that  all  the  pretexts  and  grievances  alleged  to 
justify  separation  from  that  church,  or  to  retain  people 
at  a  distance  from  it,  far  from  being  founded  on  scrip- 
ture or  primitive  tradition,  are  most  certainly  in  oppo- 
sition to  them  I  begin  then  by  demonstrating — and 
there  is  no  exaggeration  in  the  expression — that  the 
Church  is  essentially  one,  that  there  can  never  be  a 
motive  for  breaking  unity  with  her,  and  that  to  depart 
from  unity,  is  by  the  very  act,  departing  from  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  Here  proofs  of  every  kind 
combine  to  exalt  to  the  highest  degree  of  certainty, 
this  fundamental  truth,  entirely  decisive  between  our 
separated  brethren  and  ourselves:  both  the  natural 
light  of  the  human  mind,  and  the  design  and  precepts 
of  our  Saviour,  the  Father  and  Creator  of  this  light;  the 
doctrine  of  all  the  apostles*  and  their  disciples,  doctors 
or  bishops,  as  well  in  their  particular  writings,  as  in 
their  decisions  in  council;  the  practice  of  the  Church, 

*  God  is  not  the  God  of  dissension,  but  of  peace:  as  also  I  teach  in  all 
the  churches.  1  Corinth,  xiv.  33.  And  all  the  Apostles  like  St. 
Paul,  since  their  teaching  was  the  same,  and  upon  this  point  St, 
Jude  testifies  it  expressly  of  all. 


16  ANSWER  TO  THE 

and  the  order  of  its  government  pursued  from  the  be- 
ginning; and  finally,  the  testimonies  even  of  those,  who 
broke  unity  in  the  16th  century,  and  of  those,  who  in 
support  of  that  particular  reformed  party  in  which  they 
were  born,  never  ceased  to  thunder  against  those,  who 
dissented  from  them.* 

I  have  collected  in  my  second  Letter  a  number  of 
texts  on  this  great  question,  which  appear  to  me  well 
calculated  to  make  an  indelible  impression  upon  my 
readers.  Yes,  sir,  if  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  who- 
ever among  your  countrymen  is  faithfully  in  search  of 
the  truth,  will  there  clearly  see,  as  I  venture  to  assure 
him,  that  truth  can  never  be  found  in  schism  and  sepa- 
ration. Shall  I  only  recall  to  your  remembrance  those 
words  twice  repeated  by  our  Divine  Saviour  in  the 
admirable  prayer  which  he  made  to  his  Father  in  the 
midst  of  his  Apostles,  the. evening  before  his  passion? 
"That  they  all  may  be  one,"  said  he,  "that  the  world 
may  believe  that  thou  has  sent  me.     That  is  to  say, 

*I  have  quoted  these  various  authorities  in  my  second  letter 
from  page  53  to  60.  I  will  here  add  the  following  to  the  celebrat- 
ed Theologians  of  your  church:  "The  King'1  (says  Casaubon  of 
James  the  First)  "plainly  believes,  without  fallacy  or  deceit,  that 
there  is  but  one  true  church,  called  Catholic  or  Universal,  out  of 
which  he  holds  that  no  salvation  is  to  be  expected.  He  detests 
those  who  in  old  times  and  afterwards  either  departed  from  the 
faith  of  the  church,  and  so  became  heretics;  or  departing  from 
her  communion  became  schismatics."  How  was  it  possible  to 
speak  so  well,  and  yet  not  apply  his  principles  to  the  transactions 
of  the  preceding  reign?  How  was  it  that  James  the  First  was  not 
sensible  of  the  strict  obligation  of  honestly  labouring  to  bind  again 
the  bond  of  unity?  What  did  it  profit  him  to  wear  so  rich  and 
noble  a  crown  during  a  mortal  life  in  the  midst  of  the  schism,  if  he 
knew  it  to  be  such?  "The  ark  out  of  which  all  perished,"  says 
Mr.  Perkins,  "was  an  emblem  of  the  church  militant,  out  of  which 
all  are  condemned:  out  of  the  militant  church  there  being  no  means 
of  salvation,  no  preaching,  no  sacraments;  and  by  consequence  no 
salvation."     On  the  Revelation,  p.  308. 

"If  the  Church  of  Rome,"  says  Tillotson  (T.  6,  p.  245J  be  the 
Catholic  Church,  it  is  necessary  to  be  of  that  communion;  because 
out  of  the  Catholic  Church  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation." 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  17 

that  all  those  who  may  hereafter  believe  my  word, 
and  the  preaching  of  my  Apostles,  may  be  one  among 
themselves,  as  thou  and  I,  Father!  are  one:  in  order 
that  by  the  agreement  of  their  faith,  by  their  adherence 
to  the  same  pastors,  their  perseverance  in  the  same 
Church,  they  may  prove  to  all  the  faithful  that  my 
mission  came  from  thee.  For  thou  alone,  O  Father! 
canst  command  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men;  thou 
alone  canst  bring  them  to  uniformity  of  belief,  and 
retain  them  in  it.  At  this  spectacle,  hitherto  unknown 
upon  the  earth,  the  infidels  will  feel  thy  power  and 
thy  sweet  influence,  and  will  come  to  adore  thee  at 
the  feet  of  the  same  altars.  Let  them  be  one,  that 
the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  truly  sent  me!" 

Tell  me,  sir,  can  you  ever  be  persuaded  that  any 
man  can  love  our  amiable  and  adorable  Saviour,  and 
remain  insensible  to  this  moving  prayer?  That  any 
one  can  be  zealous  for  his  glory,  and  yet  be  pleased 
with  divisions,  and  oppose  the  accomplishment  of  his 
wishes?  That  it  is  possible  to  desire  the  extension  of 
his  kingdom,  and  yet  arrest  its  progress  by  word  and 
example?  To  wish  that  his  divine  mission  should  be 
displayed  in  the  intimate  union  of  all  his  followers,  and 
yet  by  laborious  efforts  to  retain  Christians  at  a  dis- 
tance from  one  another,  and  by  rash  and  often  calum- 
nious accusations  prevent  them  from  religiously  giving 
each  other  the  hand,  and  becoming  again  among  them- 
selves what  they  were  in  the  days  of  peace  and  con- 
fraternity? 

I  seriously  invite  my  reverend  antagonist  to  weigh 
in  his  heart  and  before  God  the  considerations  which 
arise  from  the  sublime  prayer  of  our  Saviour.  I  en- 
treat him  moreover  to  dwell  some  moments  on  these 
words  of  the  celebrated  Protestant  Claude,  to  Dr. 
Henchman,  Bishop  of  London,  in  1 680,  on  occasion  of 
the  Dissenters  in  that  extensive  diocese:  "Evidently," 
he  wrote,  "their  conduct  is  equivalent  to  a  positive 
schism,  a  crime  detestable  in  itself  both  to  God  and  man. 


13  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Those  who  are  guilty  of  it,  whether  by  first  establish- 
ing it  themselves,  or  continuing  to  enforce  it  among 
others,  must  expect  to  have  a  terrible  account  to  ren- 
der at  the  great  day  of  judgment."  Claude  did  not 
perceive  that  he  himself  was  at  the  head  of  a  party  of 
Dissenters  whose  origin  and  schism  came  from  Calvin! 
He  was  not  sensible  that  he  himself  was  continuing  to 
maintain  this  schism  among  his  partizans!  and  he  did 
not  apply  to  himself  what  he  said  with  so  much  justice 
of  his  imitators  present  and  future,  that  they  must  expect 
to  have  to  render  a  terrible  account!  What  astonish- 
ing blindness!  How  can  we  consider  it  but  as  a  just 
visitation  from  above?  But  why  should  this  unhappy 
Claude  find  imitators  even  in  our  days?  Why  must  we 
even  now  have  the  pain  of  witnessing  an  able  writer 
sharing  his  inconsistency;  proclaiming  like  him  the 
enormity  of  schism,  and  like  him  taking  up  his  pen  or 
raising  his  voice  to  attach  the  people  to  it  more  firmly? 
Let  him  prove  then  at  the  same  time  either  that  Eliza- 
beth and  her  clergy  did  not  break  unity;  or  that  out  of 
unity,  and  in  schism,  we  can  secure  our  salvation. 
Neither  he,  nor  any  one  in  the  world,  will  ever  prove 
either. 

I  must  however  remark,  to  his  praise, — and  it  is  a 
consolation  to  me  to  make  it  public, — that  he  appears 
to  have  felt  the  force  of  the  proofs,  which  filled  my 
second  Letter.  Had  he  found  them  defective,  he 
would  not  have  hesitated  to  object  to  them.  I  take 
authority  from  his  silence  to  say,  that  on  the  decisive 
question  of  unity  we  are  both  agreed.  What  I  truly 
deplore  is,  that  while  he  admits  the  principle  with  all 
the  Protestant  communions,  he  rejects  with  them  its 
essential  and  immediate  consequence,  though  he  prides 
himself  on  logical  exactness.  This  consequence  ought 
long  ago  to  have  led  him  and  them  to  that  tribunal  of 
Divine  creation,  which  Jesus  Christ  has  erected  in  his 
Church,  to  preserve  the  faithful  in  unity.     The  estab- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  19 

lishment  of  this  tribunal,  and  the  obligations  of  sub- 
mitting to  it,  are  the  subjects  of  the  Letter  following. 

When  it  is  once  demonstrated,  and  acknowledged 
on  all  sides  that  the  precept  of  unity  is  indispensable, 
and  of  rigorous  obligation  upon  all  Christians,  it  must 
be  believed  that  our  Divine  Legislator  has  given  us 
the  means  of  observing  it.  Now  this  means,  since  per- 
sonal inspiration  has  ceased,  can  be  no  other  for  us  all, 
than  the  establishment  of  a  supreme  tribunal,  which 
has  the  right  of  declaring  what  is  revealed,  and  what 
is  not;  and  which,  itself  secured  from  error,  will  also 
preserve  us  from  it  while  subject  to  its  decisions.  If 
such  a  means  does  not  exist,  then  we  have  no  means 
whatever  of  obeying  Jesus  Christ  on  this  essential 
point.  Without  this  tribunal,  it  is  impossible  for  us 
ever  to  remain  united;  with  it,  we  can  never  be  other- 
wise. If  the  New  Testament  had  never  been  written, 
we  ought  still  to  have  believed  in  the  institution  of  this 
ancient  authority,  and  admitted  it  as  the  necessary  ef- 
fect of  a  known  cause,  and  the  evident  consequence 
of  an  acknowledged  principle.  Both  are  inseparably 
bound  by  a  chain,  impalpable,  but  indestructible. 

This  method  of  reasoning  is  not  at  all  to  the  taste  of 
Mr.  Faber.  There  was  one  way,  and  only  one  of  re- 
futing it:  he  should  have  proved  that  without  acknow- 
ledging an  infallible  authority,  Christians  can  always 
remain  in  unity  of  faith.  But  neither  he,  nor  any  other 
upon  earth,  will  discover  such  a  proof.  The  passions 
of  men  and  the  experience  of  ages  will  eternally  ap- 
pear in  opposition  to  it.  What  then  is  his  resource  to 
furnish  a  refutation?  At  first  he  professes  not  to  per- 
ceive the  intimate  relation  and  connexion  between  the 
precept  of  unity,  and  the  necessary  existence  of  an 
infallible  tribunal.  He  takes  infallibility  separately, 
as  if  persuaded  that  by  keeping  it  apart  from  unity,  he 
can  attack  it  with  greater  advantage.  He  therefore 
passes  over  my  second  Letter  like  the  first,  and  enters 
at  once  into  discussion  with  the  third.     Wc  shall  soon 


20  ANSWER  TO  THE 

see  whether  his  attempt  is  crowned  with  success;  but 
it  is  curious  enough  to  observe  how,  after  so  often  re- 
peating that  he  would  take  my  work  for  his  text,  he 
passes  over  in  silence  the  first  hundred  pages! 

It  is  true,  however,  that  farther  on  he  glances  at  the 
first  argument  of  my  third  Letter — and  at  page  39  he 
has  chosen  to  say  a  few  words  upon  it  without  finding 
fault.  Here  however  he  appears  to  disapprove  of  the 
observation  I  made  in  these  words,  "God  commands 
us  to  preserve  unity  in  religion;  therefore  he  has  fur- 
nished us  with  the  means  of  so  doing."  This  mode  of 
concluding  a  priori  appears  to  him  too  hazardous,  too 
bold  and  venturesome.  And  yet  no  one  more  freely 
yields  than  himself  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  reason. 
He  very  often  delights  in  putting  whole  pages  of  my 
book  into  form,  into  syllogisms  suitable  to  his  purpose, 
and  intentionally  so  turned  as  to  introduce  what  he 
intends  to  object  to  me.  Nay  more;  in  the  same  chap- 
ter, page  38,  he  forgets  what  he  has  just  blamed,  and 
pleads  himself  in  favour  of  theological  reasoning:  "we 
shall  introduce,"  says  he,  "an  universal  scepticism,  if 
we  deny  the  right  of  forming  a  private  judgment  upon 

perfectly  unambiguous    propositions In  these 

matters,  and  in  various  others  which  might  easily  be 
specified,  I  hold  private  judgment  to  be  strictly  legi- 
timate; and  I  feel  persuaded  that  the  Bishop  of  Aire 
will  not  disagree  with  me."  Well,  sir,  do  you  find 
any  ambiguity  in  the  propositions  which  I  have  advanc- 
ed, on  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  supreme  authority? 
Are  they  not  on  the  contrary  as  clear  as  the  light?  I 
had  a  right  then,  according  to  Mr.  Faber  himself,  to 
use  them,  and  he  was  wrong  in  censuring  me  for  it. 

After  declaring  what  reason  suggests  on  the  neces- 
sity of  a  supreme  tribunal,  I  come  to  the  authorities, 
which  demonstrate  its  real  existence.  It  is  Jesus 
Christ  who  teaches  it;  his  apostles  and  their  succes- 
sors; the  conviction  which  ever  animates  the  Church, 
and    directs  her    dogmatical    decisions  in  councils. 


.DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  21 

These  proofs  brought   together  demonstrate   that  in 
fact  this  tribunal,  the  propriety  of  which  good  sense 
alone  had  ascertained,  was  positively  established  by 
Jesus  Christ.     I  beg  those  who  have  at  bond  the 
Difficulties  of  Romanism,  to  compare  the  2d  chapter 
of  the  first  book  with  my  third  Letter.     Mr.  Faber  saw 
very  plainly  the  force  and  development  of  (he  proofs 
which  I  there  adduced,  and  he  docs  not  even  endea- 
vour to  destroy  them!     He  contents  himself  with  ad- 
vancing that  I  do  not  reason  according  to  the  promis 
and  expressions  of  our  Lord,  but  from  the  mterpn 
tions,  which  I  give  to  them.     Judge,  sir,  between  us-, 
are  not  the  following  words  clear  and  positive  declara- 
tions— uGo  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations:   teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have  com- 
manded you:  and  behold  I  am  with  you  all  dayt 
to  the  consummation  of  the  world?"*     What  need  h<    < 
of  arbitrary  interpretations?     How  can  these  wo] 
be  susceptible  of  opposite  expositions?!    Jesus  Christ 
promises  his  and  their  successors  to  the  end  of  the 
world  that  he  will  assist  them,  when  they  shall   teach 
the  precepts,  which  he  has  given  them.     Can  it  enter 
any  sensible  head,  that  error  can  corrupt  that  teaching. 
which  is  directed  by  our  Saviour  himself?     And  when 
be  says  to  them,  UI  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he  will 
give  you  another  Paraclete:  when  he  shall  come,  the 
spirit  of  truth,  he  shall  teach  you  all  truth."      Can 
there  be  any  fear  of  pernicious  mixture  in  doctrine, 
where  the  Holy  Spirit  resides,  and  teaches  all  truth? 
What  is  wanting  to  the  clearness  of  these  magnificent 
promises?    What  need  have  they  of  any  interpretation2 
And  above  all,  bow  can  they  be  interpreted  in  an  op- 
posite sense?     Truly  there    are  certain    unfortunate 
minds,  for  which  no  human   language   is   sufficiently 
plain.     Tell  them  further  with  St.  Paul  that  the  Church 

•St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,20. 

t  See  Bossuet,  Corollaire  de  la  Defense  du  Clcrge   Gall,  parae;.   6 , 
and  Dissertation  Prelimin.  parag.  21. 

3 


22  ANSWER  TO  THE 

of  God  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth;  they  will 
reply  that  doubtless  it  was  so  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  but  that  in  our  days  we  behold  this  pillar  on 
the  contrary  surmounted  by  a  group  of  errors.  Have 
then  the  gates  of  hell  prevailed  against  the  Church? 
Has  Jesus  Christ  ceased  to  be  with  her?  Has  he 
withdrawn  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  failed  to  accomplish  his 
word?  No,  no,  my  dear  sir,  far  be  such  blasphemy 
from  us;  we  know  that  the  world  will  pass  away,  but 
that  his  word  will  not  pass  away.  Let  us  hold  fast 
his  brilliant  promises;  and  pity  every  communion,  which 
rejects  them,  which  prides  itself  on  having  no  con- 
nexion with  them,  and  by  that  alone  cuts  itself  off 
from  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  Let  us  deplore  the 
blindness  of  those  who  invent  interpretations  opposite 
to  the  promises  given  to  the  Church,  only  because  they 
are  determined,  in  spite  of  every  proof,  never  to  re- 
enter her  bosom. 

"That  the  privilege  of  infallibility  resides  in  the 
Catholic  Church,"  says  Mr.  Faber  at  the  beginning  of 
his  discussion,  page  10,  "is  strenuously  maintained: 
but  as  to  the  precise  quarter  where  it  is  to  be  found, 
there  is  not  the  same  unanimity."  He  goes  on  to  say, 
that  some  hold  it  to  reside  in  the  Pope  and  others  in  a 
general  council:  and  adds,  page  12,  "Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, if  the  prerogative  of  infalibility  belong  to 
the  church,  we  must  seek  its  residence  elsewhere  than  in 
the  person  of  the  Pope."  A  truth  too  striking  for  me 
to  wish  to  dispute.  But  let  him  listen  to  one  reproach 
which  he  very  often  deserves.  He  sets  out  with  say- 
ing, and  repeats  again  and  again,  that  he  chooses  the 
Discussion  Amicale  for  his  text,  and  that  it  is  his  in- 
tention to  comment  upon  it  from  beginning  to  end. 
And  yet  at  page  224  of  the  1st  volume,  I  insert  this 
objection  at  length,  and  give  its  solution:  he  takes  no 
notice  of  this  whatever.  He  forgets  his  engagement 
with  the  public  and  with  myself.  I  can  no  longer  dis- 
cover his  purpose.     He  must  be  satisfied  with  my  re- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  23 

ferring  both  himself  and  his  readers  to  my  book.  I 
will  here  only  sum  up  my  answer  in  a  few  words. 
"The  general  acceptation  of  the  bishops  dispersed 
over  the  world  assures  us  that  a  council  is  really 
oecumenical  or  universal:  by  them  also  are  we  made 
certain  that  the  Pope  has  pronounced  ex  cathedra. 
Thus  we  Catholics  agree  perfectly  in  the  same  princi- 
ple*, and  in  reality  we  on  both  sides  attach  the  seal  of  in- 
fallibility to  universal  consent."  This,  I  conceive,  is  all 
that  needs  be  said  in  reply  to  this  formidable  objection. 
The  opinion  of  those  who  place  infallibility  in  a 
general  council,  appears  best  to  suit  the  taste  of 
Mr.  Faber.  But  unluckily,  says  he,  "from  faithful 
history  we  learn,  that  general  councils,  upon  points 
both  of  doctrine  and  practice;  have  decided  in  plain 
and  avowed  opposition  to  each  other.'"  He  is  not  the 
first,  who  has  made  this  assertion:  but  certainly  if  he 
had  been  able  to  prove  it,  he  would  have  been  the 
first,  who  had  succeeded  in  so  doing.  It  is  curious  to 
observe  how  he  proceeds  in  his  demonstration.  He 
takes  two  councils,  one  of  which  was  from  the  begin- 
ning rejected  by  the  whole  of  the  West,  and  soon  after 
by  the  universal  Church:  and  the  other  immediately 
approved  by  it.  He  wonders  to  find  them  teaching 
opposite  doctrines,  as  if  he  had  honestly  expected  to 
find  them  unanimous.  Truly  I  lament  that  this  pitiful 
objection  should  be  revived  in  these  days.  There  is 
not  a  student  in  our  seminaries  who  does  not  know  that 
the  Conciliabulum  of  Constantinople  in  754  was  never 
acknowledged .*     Every  difficulty,  once  solved,  should 

*:'How  could  it  be  a  general  council,  when  it  was  neither  re- 
ceived, nor  approved,  but  on  the  contrary,  anathematized  by  the 
bishops  of  other  churches — when  neither  concurred  in  by  the 
Pope,  nor  by  the  bishops  about  him,  nor  by  legates,  nor  by  a  cir- 
cular letter  according  to  the  usage  of  councils?  Which  had  not 
the  consent  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  East,  of  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
or  Jerusalem,  nor  of  the  bishops  dependent  upon  them.'1'  Extract- 
ed from  the  Refutation  of  this  Conciliabulum,  read  in  the  6th  session 
of  the  2d  Council  of  Nice.  See  Fleury's  Church  Hist.  vol.  6th, 
book  44,  §  36,  of  the  quarto  edition,  printed  at  Caen. 


24  ANSWER  TO  THE 

be  consigned  to  oblivion:  it  is  unworthy  of  a  man  of 
learning  to  mention  it  again.  It  may  deceive  the  illite- 
rate; but  in  the  end  it  will  disgrace  that  man  in  the 
eyes  of  both  parties,  who  flattered  himself  that  he 
could  still  turn  it  to  the  credit  of  his  own. 

In  support  of  the  pretended  opposition  between 
general  councils,  of  which  he  has  selected  such  an  un- 
lucky example,  I  find  him  inserting  long  historical 
notes.,  which,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  are  complete  in  every 
thing  except  applicability  and  truth.  Mr.  Faber  disco- 
vers in  the  South  of  Spain,  in  the  small  town  of  Elvira, 
a  council  of  nineteen  bishops,  who  forbid  painting  the 
Godhead  on  the  walls  of  the ir  churches;  and  by  a  very 
illogical  way  of  arguing,  concluding  twice  from  par- 
ticulars to  universals,  he  deduces  from  this  prohibition 
two  false  conclusions.  The  first,  that  it  was  forbidden 
to  paint  on  the  walls  any  kind  of  pictures:  the  second, 
that  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  not  only  was  the 
veneration  of  images  and  pictures  unknown,  but  even 
that  their  introduction  into  the  churches  was  forbidden. 
Mr.  Faber  would  have  reasoned  otherwise  if  he  had 
taken  St.  John  Damascen  for  his  guide,  who  was  so 
famous  in  the  grand  dispute  about  images:  "We 
know.*'  says  he,  "what  can,  and  what  cannot  be  rep- 
resented by  images.  How  can  an  image  be  made  of 
Him,  who  has  no  body?  But  since  he  became  man, 
you  may  make  a  representation  of  his  human  form,  of 
his  nativity,  of  his  baptism,  his  tranfiguration,  his  cross, 
His  burial,  his  resurrection,  or  ascension.  Express  all 
these  by  colours  as  well  as  by  words;  be  not  afraid." 
The  first  consequence  deduced  by  Mr.  Faber  from 
the  council  of  Elvira  is  therefore  false.  Must  we  say 
the  same  of  the  second?  Let  us  refer  it  to  the  deci- 
sion of  St.  Basil.  "I  receive  the  apostles,"  he  wrote 
to  Julian,  "the  prophets  and  the  martyrs.  I  invoke 
them  to  pray  for  me,  and  that  by  their  intercession, 
God  may  be  merciful  to  me,  and  forgive  my  trans- 
gressions.    For  this  reason  I  revere  and  honour  their 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  25 

images-,  especially  since  we  are  taught  to  do  so  (this 
is  addressed  at  once  to  Mr.  Faber)  "by  the  tradition  of 
the  holy  apostles;  and  so  far  from  these  being  forbid- 
den us,  they  appear  in  our  churches."*  Mr.  Faber 
read  this  passage,  with  many  others,  in  the  Discussion 
.Imicale,  vol.  2.  page  364;  but  he  passes  them  all  over 
in  silence,  and  is  unwilling  to  make  them  known  to 
those  whom  he  undertakes  to  instruct. 

The  following  is  of  the  highest  antiquity;  and  I  wish 
to  retrace  it  before  my  readers,  first,  because  he  has 
considered  it  prudent  to  withhold  it  from  his;  and 
secondly,  because  when  we  undertake  to  enlighten 
mankind,  there  is  no  need  of  concealing  from  them  the 
truth.  Tertullian,  when  driven  to  the  excess  of  rigour 
by  tlie  inflexibility  of  his  character,  reproached  the 
Catholics  with  having  absolved  adulterers,  and  defend- 
ed such  indulgence  by  the  words  of  the  good  Shepherd 
represented  in  painting,  or  in  relief  upon  the  clialices. 
"Let  us  now,"  he  resumes,  "produce  the  pictures  upon 
the  chalices."f  It  was  at  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury that  he  spoke  thus  of  this  figure  painted  or  en- 
graved, as  of  a  common  ornament.  Would  it  be  an 
unwarrantable  presumption  to  attribute  its  origin  to  the 
days  of  the  apostles?  In  the  stormy  centuries  of  re- 
viving persecutions,  the  Church  possessing  neither  tem- 
ples, nor  oratories,  had  not  been  able  to  fix  pictures  or 
images  on  the  walis  or  altars,  in  the  same  manner  as 
she  did  later.  But  she  had  portable  ones  on  the  cha- 
lices, such  as  alone  were  suitable  to  her  uncertain  and 
fluctuating  situation.     This  sentence  of  Tertullian,  let 

*In  814  Leo,  the  Armenian,  at  that  time  the  disguised  patron  of 
the  Iconoclasts,  assembled  several  bishops  in  order  to  induce  them 
to  break  pious  images.  Euthymius,  metropolitan  of  Sardes,  thus 
addressed  him:  "Know,  sire,  that  for  800  years  and  more  since 
Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world,  he  has  been  painted  and  adored 
in  his  image.  Who  will  be  bold  enough  to  abolish  so  ancient  a 
tradition?"— Who?  the  Rector  of  Long  Newton.— See  Heury,  vol. 
7.  b.  46.  §  13.  Quarto  edit,  of  Caen. 

fLe  de  Pudic.  ch.  7. 

3* 


26  ANSWER  TO  THE 

iall  by  the  way,  and  without  any  regular  design,  ap- 
peared to  me  in  1812,  a  ray  of  light  for  our  cause.  I 
have  since  had  the  satisfaction  to  see  the  same  view 
of  it  taken  by  Leibnitz,  the  most  penetrating  and  uni- 
versal genius  of  the  reformation.* 

I  again  feel  compelled  against  my  inclination  to  re- 
establish a  fact  mutilated  by  the  faithful  and  modest 
pen  of  my  antagonist,  who  thinks  himself  justified  in 
praising  a  Bishop  of  Marseilles  for  what  St.  Gregory 
the  Great  found  worthy  of  censure,  and  in  blaming 
With  contempt  the  decision  of  one  of  the  greatest 
lights,  who  have  governed  the  Church.  Such  a  forget- 
fulness  of  all  that  is  becoming  would  cause  disgust,  if 
it  were  not  still  more  calculated  to  excite  pity.  Read 
what  follows,  sir,  I  beseech  you,  and  say  if  you  think 
me  too  severe: — "I  have  learnt,"  writes  this  great 
Pope  to  Serenus,  "that  seeing  some  persons  adore  the 
images  in  the  Church,  you  have  broken  them:  I  com- 
mend your  zeal  for  preventing  the  adoration  of  things 
made  by  the  hand  of  man.  But  I  am  of  opinion  that 
you  ought  not  to  have  broken  these  images;  for  pic- 
tures are  placed  in  the  churches  (observe  the  general 
custom)  in  order  that  those,  who  cannot  read,  may  see 
upon  the  walls  what  they  cannot  learn  in  books.  You 
ought  therefore  to  have  preserved  them,  and  deterred 
the  people  from  sinning  by  adoring  the  'painting." 
And  in  a  second  letter,  "Shew  the  people  by  the  Holy 
Scripture,  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  adore  what  has  been 
made  by  the  hand  of  man;  and  add,  that  seeing  the 
lawful  use  of  images  turned  into  adoration,  you  be- 
came indignant  and  broke  them.  If  you  will,  you  can 
further  say — I  willingly  allow  you  to  have  images  in 

*Et  quanquam  sub  initio  Christianismi,  aut  nullas  aut  perraras 
fuisse  imagines,  probabilius  videatur,  (unius  enim  imaginis  Christi, 
sub  habitu  boni  pastoris  ovem  errantem  requirentis,  sacris  calici- 
hus  insculpti  mentio  reperitur  apurl  Tertullianum)  paulatim  tamen 
fuisse  receptas  ncgari  non  potest. — Syst.  Theolog.  p.  132.  Ed'U, 
P*ris.  1819. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  27 

the  church  for  your  instruction,  for  which   purpose 

they  were  made   tn  former  days If  any  one 

wishes  to  make  images,  do  not  hinder  him:  only  forbid 
the  adoration  of  them.  The  sight  of  the  historical  re- 
presentations ought  to  move  them  to  compunction;  but 
they  ought  only  to  how  down  to  adore  the  Holy  Tri- 
nity. I  say  all  this  to  you  out  of  the  love  I  have  for 
the  Church;  not  to  weaken  your  zeal,  but  to  encourage 
you  in  your  duty.*"  Could  any  one  convey  a  more 
sensible  admonition,  or  one  at  the  same  time  more  pa- 
ternal? And  yet  the  Rector  of  Long  Newton  does  not 
blush  to  call  this  a  decision  wretchedly  injudicious! 

I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  present  to  him  a  judge 
whom  doubtless  he  will  not  refuse.  Leibnitz  himself 
shall  speak:  I  regret  that  I  cannot  give  at  length  the 
judgment  of  this  great  man  on  the  subject  of  images. f 
"As  to  the  veneration  of  images,  it  cannot  be  denied 
ihat  the  Christians  abstained  from  it  a  long  time  through 
fear  of  superstition,  while  they  were  mixed  with  the 
Pagans.  But  at  length  when  the  worship  of  demons 
was  destroyed  in  the  greater  part  of  the  known  and 
civilized  world,  even  grave  men  found  no  longer  any 
reason  for  excluding  images  from  being  used  in  the 
worship  of  the  true  God,  since  they  are  the  alphabet 
of  the  unlearned,  and  a  powerful  motive  to  excite  the 
common  people  to  devotion.  It  must  be  observed  that 
a  double  honour  is  paid  to  images:  one  4dnd  which 
belongs  to  the  image,  as  when  it  is  placed  in  a  remark- 
able and  honourable  situation,  set  off  with  ornaments, 
surrounded  with  lighted  tapers,  or  carried  in  proces- 
sion; and  in  this  I  see  no  great  difficulty.  The  other 
kind  of  honour  is  that  which  is  referred  to  the  original. 
When  for  example,  it  is  kissed,  when  people  uncover 
their  heads  before  it,  or  bend  their  knees,  or  prostrate, 
or  offer  prayers,  or  vows,  or  praises  or  thanksgivings: 

♦The  first  letter  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  to  Serenus,  Bishop  of 
Marseilles,  in  the  year  599.     the  second  hi  600. 
tSee  his  Syst.  Ttieol.  p.  121. 


2S  ANSWER  TO  THE 

but  in  reality,  although  they  are  accustomed  to  talk  of 
paying  homage  to  the  image;  it  is  not  the  lifeless  thing 
incapable  of  honour,  but  the  original  which  they  honour 
before  the  image.*  No  one  with  sound  sense  will 
say  and  think,  'grant  me,  O  image,  what  I  ask;  and 
to  thee,  O  marble  or  wood,  I  return  thanks;'  but  'it 
is  thou  O  Lord,  whom  I  adore,  and  whose  praises 
1  publish.'  ....  I  see  no  evil  in  prostrating  before 
a  crucifix,  and  when  looking  upon  it,  honouring  him, 
whom  it  represents.  But  the  advantage  of  it  is  evi- 
dent; since  it  is  incontestable  that  this  action  won- 
derfully excites  the  affections;  and  we  have  seen  that 
it  was  customary  with  St.  Gregory  the  Great."  (We 
have  seen  it  too  with  St.  Basil.)  "Those  who  fol- 
low the  confession  of  Augsbourg  are  not  entirely  op- 
posed to  this  custom:  and  certainly  if  we  did  not 
know  that  there  were  formerly  great  abuses  in  the 
t  veneration  of  images,  which  have  rendered  suspicious 
a  thing  good  in  itself;  if  we  did  not  know  the  animat- 
ed disputes  which  have  arisen  on  this  point,  and  even 
in  our  own  days;  no  one  perhaps  would  have  thought 
of  suspecting  any  concealed  evil  in  the  veneration 
paid  before  an  image,  or  any  danger,  or  cause  of 
scruple;  so  innocent  is  the  thing  considered  in  itself, 
I  will  say  even  so  reasonable  and  praiseworthy."  O 
that  the  Protestant  communions,  who  will  not  own  a 
supreme  tribunal  created  by  our  Divine  Legislator, 
would  at  least  submit  to  the  authority  of  superior  men 
of  disinterested  minds  !  O  that  they  would  be  per- 
suaded by  a  Grotius  or  a  Leibnitz  !  Their  schisms  at 
length  would  cease  to  divide  the  kingdom  of  Jesus 
Christ.     Will  they  ever  find  safer  guides,  or  judges 

*"If  it  were  possible  in  human  language  to  express  ourselves 
with  rigorous  precision,  instead  of  the  veneration  of  images,  we 
should  say  veneration  of  Saints  before  their  images."  See  Disr 
cussion  Amicale,  vol.  2,  p.  348.  Let  any  one  be  at  the  pains  of 
comparing  my  16th  letter  with  Leibnitz,  and  they  will  see  that  I 
have  had  the  happiness  of  falling  in  exactly  with  that  profound 
thinker. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  29 

more  unexceptionable  than  these  two  geniuses;  both 
nurtured  and  rendered  illustrious  in  the  bosom  of  the 
reformation,  both  surmounting'  by  profound  research 
the  prejudices  of  birth,  and  the  habits  of  life,  and 
consigning,  in  their  immortal  testaments,  the  triumph 
of  Catholicity?* 

I  was  far  from  expecting,  from  the  opinion  you  had 
given  me  of  the  author,  that  I  should  see  figuring  in 
the  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  the  apparent  contradic- 
tion between  the  Fathers  of  the  second  council  of 
Nice,  and  those  of  Frankfort  and  Paris.  It  is  pain- 
ful to  have  to  explain  again  what  has  been  explained 
so  often.  O  that  this  at  least  may  be  for  the  last 
time  !  No  doubt  you  have  seen  in  the  commerce  of 
life,  friends  or  families  who  lived  in  union,  disagreeing 
all  at  once  through  a  mere  misunderstanding.  Com- 
plaints are  made  on  both  sides;  they  avoid  each  other 
and  condemn  each  other.  The  separation  and  dissen- 
sion last  as  long  as  the  error  from  which  they  arose. 
At  last  comes  an  explanation:  the  mistake  is  discover- 
ed, and  the  falsity  of  the  reports,  which  had  circulated: 
they  regret  that  they  ever  believed  them,  acknow- 
ledge their  faults,  and  on  both  sides  return  with  plea- 
sure to  their  former  sentiments  of  esteem  and  concord. 
Now  this  is  precisely  the  history  of  the  temporary  mis- 
understanding on  the  subject  of  images,  between  the 
East  and  the  Gauls,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are 
speaking.  Alarming  reports  of  the  sentiments  and  de- 
cisions of  Nice  give  occasion  to  the  convocation  of 
the  council  of  Frankfort.  An  unfaithful  translation  of 
the  Greek  acts  unluckily  comes  to  confirm  these  re- 
ports, and  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  that  absolute  ado- 
ration has  been  impiously  given  to  images.  "The 
question  proposed,"  say  the  fathers  at  Frankfort,  "is 
that  of  the  recent  council  of  the  Greeks  for  the  ado- 

*  Votum  pro  pace,  and  Systema  Ttieolog.  productions  of  the  two 
first  heads  of  the  reformation.      • 


30  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ration  of  images;  in  which  it  is  written,  that  whoever 
will  not  render  to  the  images  of  the  saints  service  and 
adoration  as  to  the  Divine  Trinity,  shall  he  considered 
anathema."  Thirty  years  afterwards  the  council  of 
Paris  still  attributed  the  same  sentiments  to  the  fa- 
thers of  Nice,  and  pronounced  their  condemnation, 
after  the  example  of  Frankfort  and  the  Caroline 
books,  and  under  the  same  erroneous  impression.  In 
course  of  time  the  truth  came  to  light.  Correct  ver- 
sions were  spread  about,  the  mistake  was  acknow- 
ledged, and  justice  was  done  to  the  Eathers  of  Nice. 
How  indeed  could  such  justice  have  been  refused, 
since  in  the  second  session  the  patriarch  Tarasius  was 
found  approving  of  Pope  Adrian's  letter,  and  adding, 
"I  am  of  the  same  belief,  that  images  are  to  be  adored 
with  a  relative  affection,  reserving  to  God  alone  the 
faith  and  worship  of  t, atria:"  and  all  the  council 
loudly  proclaiming  itself  of  the  same  opinion.  When 
also  in  the  fifth  session  this  passage  came  from  the 
Bishop  of  Thessalonica  in  reply  to  a  Pagan:  "We 
do  not  adore  the  images,  but  what  they  represent; 
and  even  then  we  do  not  adore  them  as  gods;  God 
forbid  !  but  as  the  servants  and  friends  of  God,  who 
pray  to  Him  in  our  behalf."  And  this  passage  of  a 
dialogue  where  the  Christian  replies  to  a  Jew,  who  is 
converted,  but  scandalized  at  images:  "The  scripture 
forbids  us  to  adore  a  strange  God,  and  to  adore  an 
image  as  God.  The  images,  which  you  see  among  us 
serve  to  remind  us  of  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
by  representing  his  face;  those  of  the  saints  represent 
to  us  their  combats  and  their  victories.  When  we 
venerate  them,  we  invoke  God.  "Blessed  be  thou  O 
God  of  this  saint,  and  of  all  the  saints."  Finally, 
when  at  the  last  session,  these  words  were  read  in  the 
decision  of  the  council:  "To  images  are  to  be  render- 
ed the  respect  and  adoration  of  honour;  hut  not  true 
latria,  which  our  faith  requires,  and  which  belongs 
solely  to  the  Divine  nature.    But  incense  and  lights 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  31 

are  to  be  used  before  these  images,  as  is  customary 
with  regard  to  the  cross,  and  the  gospels,  all  after  the 
pious  customs  of  the  ancients:  for  the  honour  paid  to 
the  image  is  referred  to  the  original;  and  he  who 
adores  the  image,  adores  the  "subject  which  it  repre- 
sents." These  latter  expressions  are  cited  by  Mr. 
Faber,  while  he  suppresses  the  preceding  ones,  and 
takes  care  not  to  give  the  passages  mentioned  above, 
nor  the  following  pronounced  by  the  Bishop  of  Ancy- 
ra  in  the  first  session:  "I  receive  the  venerable  images 
of  Jesus  Christ  inasmuch  as  he  became  man  for  our 
salvation;  those  of  his  holy  mother,  the  angels,  the 
apostles,  the  martyrs,  and  all  the  saints.  I  kiss  them, 
and  give  them  the  adoration  of  honotir.  I  reject  with 
all  my  heart  the  false  council  called  the  seventh,  as 
contrary  to  the  whole  tradition  of  the  Church.n  He 
himself  has  subscribed  for  fear  of  persecution:  but  re- 
morse brought  him  with  many  others  to  a  solemn  re- 
tractation. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  word  adoration  was  in 
use  in  the  East  to  signify  a  simple  testimony  of  sub- 
mission and  respect;  whilst  in  Gaul  it  was  used  solely 
to  express  the  homage  rendered  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
Is  it  not  an  absurd  injustice  to  give  it  only  the  latter 
signification  in  the  mouth  of  the  Orientals?  Is  it  to  no 
purpose  then  that  they  themselves  distinguish  two 
kinds  of  adoration,  that  of /iono?<r,  and  that  of  latria? 
To  no  purpose  that  they  proclaim  that  the  former  is 
for  the  images  of  the  saints,  and  the  latter  for  God 
alone?  It  is  in  vain  for  them  to  declare  that  the  ho- 
nour and  adoration  pass  from  the  image  to  the  origi- 
nal: they  cannot  persuade  certain  obstinate  and  preju- 
diced minds.  These  will  maintain,  in  spite  of  their 
declarations,  that  the  word  adore  is  only  susceptible 
of  one  signification,  and  that  consequently  they  cannot 
attach  to  it  any  other:  these  will  maintain  that  when 
they  pray  before  an  image  or  picture,  (for  they  must 
know  better  than  the  others)   they  only  pray  to  the 


32  ANSWER  TO  THE 

marble,  the  wood,  or  the  canvass,  that  they  have  no 
thought  beyond  these,  and  consequently  that  they 
have  been,  are,  and  will  be  forever  idolaters,  both 
they  and  their  adherents !  What  then  is  to  be  done? 
What  course  must  we  take?  Pity  these  peevish  and 
contentious  spirits,  and  leave  them  to  themselves. 

To  sum  up — the  Fathers  of  Nice,  those  of  Paris, 
and  those  of  Frankfort,  agreed  without  being  aware  of 
it,  in  the  self-same  doctrine.  The  opinion  of  the  Ori- 
entals, falsely  interpreted  for  some  years,  but  better 
understood  afterwards,  was  found  conformable  to  that 
of  Gaul,  Germany,  Italy,  and  ancient  tradition:  and  in 
the  end  it  reigned  exclusively  in  the  East,  under  the 
rule  of  the  Empress  Theodora.  Here  is  precisely 
what  should  be  thought  of  the  vicissitudes,  occasion- 
ed by  the  Iconoclast  Emperors.  I  am  sorry  for  Mr. 
Faber's  sake,  after  all  the  pleasure  he  has  felt  in 
enumerating  the  pretended  variations  of  a  Church, 
which  believes  itself,  with  reason,  unchangeable  in 
faith,  and  which  even  by  its  Divine  constitution,  can- 
not be  otherwise. 

After  attempting  to  shake  our  infallible  tribunal  by 
exhibiting  councils  opposed  to  each  other,  and  com- 
pletely failing  in  this  first  attempt;  is  it  likely  that  Mr. 
Faber  will  be  more  successful  in  opposing  them  by 
turns  to  the  primitive  Church,  and  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures? He  has  persuaded  himself  that  he  should 
triumph  over  the  fourth  council  of  Lateran,  held  in 
1215,  under  Innocent  III.  He  takes  offence  at  the 
word  transubstantiation,  employed  in  the  first  chapter, 
to  express  the  change  of  substance,  in  the  Eucharist 
He  pronounces  that  the  word  and  the  thing  are  in 
manifest  opposition  to  the  belief  and  doctrine  of  the 
first  five  centuries.  He  expresses  himself  in  a  deci- 
sive and  dogmatical  tone,  like  a  man  sure  of  what  he 
asserts;  and  he  little  suspects  that  he  is  all  the  while 
completely  in  error.  He  will  see  positive  proof  of 
his  being  in  error  in  the  next  chapter.     I  shall  there 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  3$ 

establish  the  proposition  precisely  contrary  to  his;  that 
is  to  say,  the  exact  conformity  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
first  five   centuries  with  that  of  the   fourth    council 
of  Lateran.     You   will,  I  flatter  myself,  agree  with 
me,  that  Mr.  Faber  has  not  discovered  the  spirit  and 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers  upon  the  Eucharist,  that  he 
takes  their  doctrine  in  an  inverted  sense;  as  do  Tillot- 
son  and   all  the  sacramentarians — whence  it  follows 
that  he  thinks  them  contradictory  to  each  other  and 
even  to  themselves.     I  will  throw  new  light  on  this 
subject;  and  the  result  will  necessarily  be,  that  what 
he  calls  my  "shrewd  arguments,"  furnished  in  rigo- 
rous truth,   the  only  key,  which    can  lay   open  the 
opinion  of  the  fathers,  and  acquit  them  of  the  charge 
of  being  at  variance  with  themselves  and  one  another. 
At  present  I  pass  on  to  the  pretended  opposition  oi 
our  general   councils    to  the  sacred  scriptures.     But 
previous  to  replying  to  the  examples  of  it  which  he 
produces,  it  will  be  necessary  to  shew  him  again,  since 
he  does  not  know  it,  or  pretends  not  to  know,  by  what 
marks  the  (Ecumenicity,  or  universality  of  councils  be- 
comes  acknowledged,  as  well  as  their   decisions  of 
doctrine,  or  other  regulations.     It  is  strange  that  pro- 
fessing to  refute  my  work  step  by  step,  he  leaves  it 
continually,  and  flies  oft',  no  one  knows  where,  to  rind 
something  to  sift  and  dispute.     I  have  undoubtedly  a 
right,  when  he  professes  to  attack  me,  to  require  him 
to  do  so  upon  my  own  principles,  and  not  upon  those 
of  others.     Now  I  have  laid  down  as  a  fundamental 
principle,  with  all  our  able  theologians,  that  the  gene- 
ral acceptation  of    the  bishops   dispersed   oveF    the 
world,  the  judges  of  faith,  could  alone  make  known 
to  us  whether  such  a  council  was  really  oecumenical, 
or  such  a  decree  of  a  Pope  pronounced  ex  cathedra; 
and  consequently  whether  the  decision  of  the  council 
or  Pope  appertained  to  faith.     Upon  this  principle,  it 
is  easy  for  you,  sir,  to  judge,  that  the  whole  of  what 
Mr.  Faber  adduces  from  Ins  second  chapter  to  the  end 
4 


34  ANSWER  TO  THE 

of  page  17,  is  entirely  foreign,  and  inapplicable  to  the 
Catholic  doctrine.  He  would  have  done  very  wisely, 
if  he  had  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  swelling  out 
his  book  with  it,  and  us  the  labour  of  reading  articles 
which  do  not  in  any  way  interest  us. 

We  should  be  greviously  mistaken,  if  like  Mr.  Fa- 
ber,  we  were  to  take  for  decisions  and  articles  of  faith, 
all  that  we  found  in  the  decrees,  chapters,  or  canons 
of  general  councils.     We  often  find  in  them  sentences 
introduced  to  serve  for  explanation,  or  to  prevent  a 
difficulty;   others   hardly   touched  upon,  and   merely 
given  en  passant,  which  therefore  do  not  belong  to  the 
main  subject  of  the  decision.     Tkese  incidental  sen- 
tences do  not  in  any  way  concern  faith,    and  impose 
no  obligation  of  belief  or  assent*     If  you  please,  we 
will  take,  as  an  example,  one  of  the  canons  brought  as 
an  objection  by  Mr.  Faber,  page  2  3 — the  sixth  canon 
of  the  second  council  of  Laleran,  in  the  year  1139, 
that  we  may  discuss  the  second   council   before   the 
third  with  the  Rector's  permission,  though  he  takes 
them  the  other  way.     "Decernimus  ut  ii  qui  in  ordine 
subdiaconatus  et  supra  uxores  duxerint,  aut  concubi- 
nas   habuerint,   officio  atque    ecclesiastico   beneficio 
careant."     This   is  the   whole   decree  of  discipline. 
Let  us  observe  what  follows:  "Cum  enim  ipsi  tem- 
plum  Dei,  vasa  Domini,  sacrarium  Spiritus  Sancti  de- 
beant  esse  et  dici,  indignum  est  eos  cubilibus  et  im- 
munditiis  deservire."     This  passage  follows  the  deci- 
sion, and  does  not  belong  to  it:  it  is  added  in  the  way 
of  explanation  to  justify  the  prohibition  and  obviate 
objections.     In  a  word,  it  is  a  reflection,  and  not  a 
decree.     This,  I  imagine,  should  be  enough  to  pacify 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Faber,  which  has  taken  fire  at  the 
reflection  of  the  fathers  of  Lateran.     Let  him  then 
cool  down,  and  not  imagine  that  if  he  became  a  Ca- 

*See  Melchior  Canus  de  locis  Theol.  a  celebrated  theologian  of 
tbe  council  of  Trent. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  35 

tholic,  he  would  be  obliged  to  admit  as  an  article  of 
faith,  what  appears  to  have  given  him  so  much  of- 
fence. 

I  do  not  see,  however,  that  he  ought  to  feel  any 
great  difficulty  in  adopting  it,  if  lie  reflected  ever  so 
little.  If  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  who  had  car- 
nally cohabited  with  his  wife  was  considered  unclean, 
and  could  not  on  the  same  day  even  enter  the  sanctu- 
ary, is  it  not  very  congruous  that  the  priest  of  the 
new  law,  obliged  as  he  is  every  day  to  administer  the 
sacraments  or  celebrate  the  sacred  mysteries,  should 
absolutely  refrain  from  conjugal  obligations?  Let  the 
Rector  only  take  a  review  of  the  distractions,  disqui- 
etudes, and  other  consequences,  entailed  by  the  nup- 
tial union;  let  him  reflect  on  the  first  bower  of  man- 
kind, and  I  cannot  think  he  will  find  any  exaggeration 
in  the  words  employed  by  the  council  to  justify  the 
prohibition  of  marriage  for  ecclesiastics.  Neverthe- 
less, however  rigorous  and  general  it  appears,  there 
might  be  circumstances  in  which,  with  the  hope  of 
promoting  greater  good,  the  Church  might  judge  it 
right,  as  at  Nice,  to  leave  to  priests  both  the  condi- 
tion and  use  of  marriage.  For  the  rest,  Mr.  Faber  is 
wrong  in  imputing  to  us  the  prohibition  of  marriage 
in  general.  He  ought  to  know  that  it  is  more  honour- 
ed by  the  Catholic  Church,  than  by  his  own.  With 
him  and  every  other  Protestant,  matrimony  is  merely 
a  civil  ceremony;  witli  us,  this  civil  ceremony  is  ex- 
alted by  the  Sacrament  of  matrimony. 

It  is  ridiculous  to  behold,  at  pp.  27 — 28,  the  imagi- 
nary triumph  of  the  Rector,  and  to  pursue  the  pom- 
pous chain  of  syllogisms  and  dilemmas,  which  he  un- 
rols  in  order  to  place  the  council  in  evident  contradic- 
tion with  the  scripture.  When  Luther  formerly 
sought  to  prove  that  good  works  availed  little  lo  sal- 
vation, he  advanced  on  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  that 
man  was  justified  by  faith  alone.  People  cried  out 
on  all  sides,  that  the  word  alone  was  not  in  the  apos- 


36  ANSWER  TO  THE 

tie's  text.  In  reality  it  never  was  there;  but  it  re- 
mains in  Luther's  quotation  to  lead  astray  the  simple 
and  ignorant  who  may  read  it.  After  the  example  of 
the  veracious  patriarch  of  the  reformation,  Mr.  Faber 
will  also  quote  St.  Paul,  (Heb.  xiii.  4)  with  equal 
fidelity.  "Scripture  declares,"  says  he,  "that  mar- 
riage is  honourable  in  all  men,  ivhether  they  be 
clerks  or  laics."  Would  you  not  suppose,  sir,  that 
this  text,  distinguished  by  italics  and  capitals,  was 
really  St.  Paul's?  Divide  it  in  two,  however,  and  be 
so  kind  as  to  return  the  larger  half  to  our  good  Rector. 
Of  the  twelve  words  in  italics,  the  seven  concluding 
ones  are  his  own;  St.  Paul  only  says,  "marriage  hon- 
ourable in  all:"     Ti^iog  6  Td^og  iv  faffi. 

I  understand  the  text  to  mean,  "let  marriage  be 
honourable;"  and  not  "marriage  is  honourable,"  as 
Mr.  Faber  translates  it.  He  will  say  that  his  English 
bible  translates  as  he  does:  let  it  be  so;  but  then  I  find 
two  in  fault  instead  of  one:  they  are  both  wrong.  In 
that  chapter  the  apostle  is  giving  precepts  of  morality, 
and  all  in  the  imperative  mood;  as  verse  1st,  Let  fra- 
ternal charily,  fyc. — v.  5,  Let  your  manners,  tyc. — ver. 
7.  Remember,  fyc. — v.  9,  Be  not  led  away,  fyc.  and  so 
on  in  verses  13,  15,  17,  18,  21,  22,  23,  24;  and  in  the 
last  verse,  we  have  Grace  be  ivith  you,  even  in  your 
bible,  where  the  Latin  is  merely,  Gratia  Dei  vobiseum. 
Therefore  the  text  in  question  ought  to  be  understood, 
Let  marriage  be  honourable  in  all.  What  completes 
the  proof  is,  that  by  translating,  Marriage  is  honour- 
able in  all  men,  the  proposition  thus  put  forth  in  the 
affirmative  and  general  sense,  would  be  untrue:  for 
certainly  marriage  is  neither  honourable  nor  honoured 
in  those  spouses  who  break  their  mutual  engagement. 
I  have  dwelt  a  long  time  on  the  monosyllable  is;  but  I 
considered  it  necessary  to  furnish  you  with  the  means 
of  judging  if  Mr.  Faber  had  any  right  to  conclude  as 
lie  does;  "Hence  it  is  evident," — "and  hence  also  it 
is  evident ....  by  the  indisputable  fact,  &c."    Lan- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  37 

guage  has  nothing  stronger,  and  yet  more  foolishly  pa- 
raded than  the  word  evident.  Now  judge,  if  you 
please,  where  is  the  double  evidence  of  Mr.  Faber,  in 
his  critique  upon  the  second  council  of  Lateran.  I 
flatter  myself  that,  at  least  in  your  opinion,  certitude 
is  on  my  side. 

It  appears  that  my  antagonist  has  a  particular  dis- 
like to  all  that  was  formerly  transacted  in  the  ancient 
basilic  of  Lateran.  We  shall  have  hereafter  to  de- 
fend the  fourth  council  from  his  attacks.  Here  he 
falls  upon  the  third;  and  in  what  manner  do  you  think? 
You  will  soon  admire  with  me  the  most  generous  and 
magnanimous  exertions  of  good  faith  and  zeal  for  the 
truth.  In  fact,  he  lights  upon  the  16th  chapter, 
chooses  out  and  places  by  itself  the  following  passage: 
"for  those  are  not  oaths,  but  perjuries,  which  are 
made  against  the  utility  of  the  Church,  and  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  holy  fathers."  It  is  easy  to  see  how 
this  passage,  thus  insulated,  will  provoke  a  zealous 
comment  from  the  indignation  of  the  Rector.  His 
tact  is  chiefly  conspicuous  in  his  having  detached  it 
from  what  preceded  and  followed  it;  and  thus  given 
it  a  general  and  indefinite  sense,  which  is  far  from  the 
intention  of  the  council.  I  must  give  you  the  whole 
of  the  16th  chapter,  entitled,  "Of  the  regulations  of 
Churches."  "Since  in  all  churches,  what  has  been 
approved  by  a  majority  of  the  ancient  brethren  should 
be  observed  without  delay;  those  deserve  to  be  repri- 
manded, who,  few  in  number,  and  less  influenced  by 
reason  than  caprice,  oppose  what  has  been  decided  by 
the  majority,  and  thus  disturb  the  course  of  ecclesias- 
tical government.  Wherefore  we  decree  by  these 
presents,  that  except  in  cases  where  reason  and  truth 
are  on  the  side  of  the  minority,  the  determination  of 
the  more  numerous  and  wise  portion  of  the  chapter 
shall  be  put  in  execution,  notwithstanding  any  appeal. 
And  let  not  this  our  decision  be  evaded,  even  if  any 
one  of  the  members  should  maintain  that  he  is  obliged 
4* 


38  ANSWER  TO  THE 

by  oath  to  support  such  or  such  a  custom  of  his  church. 
For  tlwse  are  not  oaths,  but  perjuries,  which  are  made 
against  the  utility  of  the  Church,  and  the  institutions  of 
the  holy  Fathers.  And  if  the  member  persists  in  de- 
spising decisions  conformable  to  reason  and  holy  insti- 
tutions, let  him  be  subjected  to  a  suitable  penance,  and 
so  long  deprived  of  the  participation  of  the  body  of 
our  Lord."  It  is  plain  that  this  regulation  regards  the 
canons  of  cathedrals,  where  the  capitular  statutes  are 
made  by  the  majority;  and  it  supposes  a  case  where 
the  wish  of  the  majority  is  to  abolish  a  custom  become 
prejudicial.  One  of  the  members  chooses  to  oppose 
the  measure,  under  the  pretext  that  he  has  sworn  to 
observe  the  usage  or  custom  which  the  majority  wish 
to  abolish.  uYou  swore  to  keep  it,"  they  tell  him, 
"when  it  was  in  full  force;  but  now  the  authority 
which  established  it,  is  resolved  upon  its  abolition. — 
This  at  once  annuls  the  obligation  of  your  former 
oath.  To  persist  in  defending  it,  would  be  going 
against  the  statutes  of  our  fathers,  and  against  the 
utility  of  the  church:  your  oath  would  become  a  per- 
jury." Nothing  can  be  more  simple  and  true  than 
'this. 

But  how  does  Mr.  Faber  proceed?  He  picks  out 
a  sentence  to  his  liking;  he  presents  it  in  an  insulated 
"form;  for  cathedral  churches  he  substitutes  the  Catho- 
lic, church,  and  puts  its  rulers  in  place  of  the  canons 
of  chapters.  From  this  he  sets  off  heroically  to  de- 
claim against  the  political  and  ambitious  views  of 
Rome !  You  will  allow,  sir,  that  his  favoured 
hands  do  not  change  lead  into  gold. 

His  violent  sally  against  the  policy  and  projects  of 
aggrandizement  used  by  the  court  of  Rome,  is  led  on 
by  a  pompous  display  upon  the  sacred  inviolability  of 
aii  oath,  of  whatever  kind  it  may  be:  for  he  makes  no 
exceptions^  not  even  of  one  made  against  the  interests 
of  an  individual,  of  a  family,  or  against  the  rules  of  a 
society.     If  he  does  not  go  thus  far,,  he  argues  away 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  39 

from  the  question,  and  says  nothing  that  will  avail; 
since  the  council  only  declares  those  oaths  to  he  per- 
juries, which  are  made  against  the  utility  of  the 
churches  and  the  statutes  of  the  holy  fathers. 

Little  would  the  reader  here  expect  to  see  poor 
John  Huss  hrought  on  the  stage.  The  Rector,  after 
his  ingenious  comment  on  the  16th  chapter,  brings 
forth  the  faggot  of  this  unfortunate  man,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  doctrine,  which  he  pretends  to  have 
there  discovered.  According  to  his  account,  the  Em- 
peror had  sworn  to  preserve  the  life  of  John  Huss;  but 
this  oath  being  considered  contrary  to  the  interests  of 
the  Church,  was  annulled,  he  says,  by  the  fathers  of 
Constance.  Well,  sir,  would  you  wish  to  know  the 
truth  of  this  affair?  Sigismund  had  taken  no  oath  at 
all;  and  consequently  the  council  did  not  annul  any. 
The  Emperor  had  directed  a  safe-conduct  to  be  given 
to  John  Huss,  who  wished  to  defend  his  doctrine  at 
Constance.  There  his  doctrine  was  condemned;  and 
the  man  declared  a  heretic  for  his  obstinacy  in  not 
renouncing  his  errors.  The  law,  unhappily  in  force 
on  the  Continent  at  that  time,  as  well  as  in  England, 
was  put  in  execution  against  him.  Sigismund  was  so 
far  from  having  sworn  to  preserve  his  life,  that  he  de- 
clared in  the  council  itself,  that  if  Huss  did  not  retract, 
he  himself  would  be  the  first  to  set  fire  to  his  pile.*  I 
must  say,  that  if  it  be  disgraceful  in  a  controvertist  to 
repeat  an  objection,  a  hundred  times  solidly  refuted, 
it  is  fatiguing  to  me  to  have  again  to  write  its  refuta- 
tion, as  if  it  were  for  the  first  time. 

How  unpleasant  and  painful  indeed  is  the  task,  to 
have%again  to  expose  the  false  exhibition,  which  Mr. 
Faber  makes  of  the  27th  chapter  of  the  same  council. 
Where  are  we  henceforth  to  look  for  equity  and  good 

•  The  Protestant  historian  of  the  council  of  Constance  informs 
tis  that  John  Huss,  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  were  delivered  up  to 
the  flames  by  order  of  Sigismund  himself. — L'Enfant,  bock  3,  §  43. 


40  ANSWER  TO  THE 

faith,  if  they  are  no  longer  in  the  mouth,  and  under  the 
pen  of  a  clergyman?  The  Rector  has  the  effrontery 
to  advance,  that  by  this  27th  canon,  the  obligation  of 
destroying  heretics,  was  imposed  upon  the  faithful,  who 
are  bound,  as  he  would  have  it,  even  in  these  days, 
either  to  fulfil  this  obligation,  or  to  reject  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Church.  And  yet  he  cannot  be  ignorant 
of  the  difference,  which  we  make  between  dogmatical 
decisions,  which  command  the  faith  of  Christians  for 
ever,  and  ordinances  of  discipline,  which  change  with 
the  circumstances,  which  gave  them  birth.  The  Rec- 
tor could  not  have  been  ignorant,  that  at  the  period  of 
which  he  speaks,  the  two  powers  acted  in.  concert; 
and  that  the  council  did  no  more  than  support  the  tem- 
poral authorities,  by  pressing  the  people  at  their  re- 
commendation, to  march  against  certain  barbarous  and 
formidable  sects.  He  must  have  known  that  the  coun- 
cil, so  far  from  ordering  the  destruction  of  heretics  in 
general,  marks  out  most  distinctly  those  of  whom  it 
has  been  informed,  and  distinguishes  by  name  the  Al- 
bigenses,  Bulgarians,  Cathari,  Publicani,  sprung  from 
the  Eastern  Manicheans,  and  the  excesses  and  rava- 
ges committed  by  them  in  Italy,  throughout  the  South 
of  France,  and  even  in  Spain.  "They  exercise," 
says  the  council,  in  the  same  27th  canon,  "such  cru- 
elty upon  the  Christians,  that  without  regard  to  church- 
es or  monasteries,  they  spare  neither  widows,  orphans, 
old  men  or  children,  age  or  sex;  but  destroy  and  lay 
waste  all  before  them,  like  the  Pagans."  In  fine,  Mr. 
Faber  must  have  been  aware,  that  against  every  other 
kind  of  heretics,  the  Church  has  never  known,  and  ne- 
ver will  know,  any  other  arms  than  persuasion"  and 
prayer. 

In  truth,  sir,  I  cannot  forget  the  assurance  with 
which  Mr.  Faber  takes  to  himself  the  praise  of  having 
supported,  upon  facts,  his  arguments  against  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Church.  Unquestionably  his  "naked 
facts,"  as  he  calls  them,  have  all  their  merit  intrinsical- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  41 

ly  in  themselves;  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  extrane- 
ous ornaments.  Nevertheless,  their  nudity  has  need  of 
some  covering,  and  this  indispensable  covering  is  truth. 
You  have  seen  that  truth  is  essentially  wanting,  to 
what  he  has,  with  a  semblance  of  candour,  presented 
you  as  "naked  facts."  You  have  seen  the  arguments 
which  he  has  professed  to  deduce  from  them,  disap- 
pear along  with  them,  upon  the  slightest  examination. 
Really,  if  I  were  a  member  of  your  church,  I  am  sorry 
to  say  that  I  should  feel  obliged  to  petition  for  an  in- 
junction, to  forbid  any  apologist  to  undertake  her  de- 
fence with  such  weapons:  for  it  is  manifesting  to  the 
world,  that  there  are  no  solid  arms  to  be  found  for 
your  cause. 


Reading,  at  page  31,  these  words  of  Mr.  Faber: 
"The  Bishop  lastly  argues,  &c."  I  expected  that  the 
Rector  was  about  to  mention  and  refute  my  final  proofs 
of  the  infallibility.  Not  at  all:  he  says  nothing  about 
them;  he  conceals  them  from  his  readers,  and  gives  in- 
stead of  them,  arguments  drawn  from  I  know  not 
where.  This  leads  me  to  make  an  observation,  which 
is  but  too  applicable  elsewhere.  When  he  chooses 
to  sum  up  in  a  few  lines,  whole  pages  of  my  work, — 
my  ideas,  words,  and  proofs  are  completely  metamor 
phosed  beneath  his  pen: — I  no  longer  recognise  my- 
self; it  is  not  me,  but  some  other,  whom  he  appears  to 
attack.  This  obliges  me  to  beg  of  my  readers  to  do 
me  the  justice  to  confront  my  text  with  what  he  im- 
putes to  me.  I  particularly  request  them  in  this  place, 
to  compare  my  third  letter  with  his  second  chapter. 
They  will  then  be  convinced  that  instead  of  producing 
my  proofs,  he  suppresses  the  most  striking  among 
them,  and  imputes  to  me  what  are  not  mine.  I  can 
solemnly  declare,  that  if  the  reader  only  knows  my 
work  by  the  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  he  will  have 


42  ANSWER  TO  THE 

but  an  incomplete  and  often  false  idea  of  the  Discus- 
sion Jlmicale. 

In  every  question  treated  in  that  work,  the  plan, 
which  I  have  constantly  followed,  has  been  to  prove 
our  doctrine  by  the  holy  scriptures,  and  by  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  primitive  Church;  as  these  two  princi- 
ples are  generally  admitted  and  acknowledged  by 
Protestant  theologians.  I  cannot  answer  for  their  be- 
ing so  by  Mr.  Faber;  for,  on  the  subject  of  tradition, 
he  appears  hardly  to  know  what  to  hold.  Sometimes, 
he  seems  sufficiently  disposed  to  admit  it,  and  some- 
times to  reject  it  altogether.  At  page  viii.  of  his  pre- 
face, he  requires  us  to  produce,  from  period  to  period, 
an  uninterrupted  chain  of  witnesses,  up  to  the  apos- 
tles themselves:  in  other  places  he  persuades  himself 
that  he  can  shew  us  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  primi- 
tive Church,  by  some  detached  passages  from  the 
third  or  the  second  century.  At  page  33,  he  tells  us, 
that  if  the  Christians  of  the  second  century,  could 
easily  join  with  those  of  the  first;  we  can  no  longer  do 
the  same,  separated  as  we  are  from  the  apostles'  time, 
by  too  great  a  distance,  to  pass  safely  over  the  space 
of  eighteen  centuries,  and  join  the  last  link  of  the 
chain  to  the  first.  But  from  page  IT  to  18,  he  quotes 
against  us  several  passages  from  Fathers,  of  whom  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  is  the  most  ancient.  At  page 
35,  he  will  admit  no  doctrine  which  is  not  clearly 
founded  on  the  holy  scripture;  and  at  page  49,  he 
maintains  that  the  precept  of  St.  Paul,  "Hold  the  tra- 
ditions which  you  have  learned,  whether  by  word,  or 
by  our  epistle,"*  was  not  binding,  except  about  the 
period  when  he  inculcated  it  to  the  Thessalonians. 
But  at  page  1 8,  he  labours  hard  to  prove,  that  the  first 
five  centuries  are  against  transubstantiation.  At  page 
32,  he  approves  of  the  argument  of  prescription  of 
Tertullian  and  St.  Irenaeus,  which  we  still  use  to  shew 
the  apostolicity  of  any  dogma  or  custom. 

•Thcss.  ii.  v.  14. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  43 

Among  the  doubts  and  variations  of  Mr.  Faber,  he 
will  not  object  to  my  adopting,  that  as  his  opinion, 
which  is  the  most  favourable  to  tradition.  I  am  the 
more  inclined  to  do  this,  as  it  will  be  the  means  of 
reconciling  his  sentiments,  with  those  of  the  most  ce- 
lebrated theologians  of  his  church,  who  profess  an 
entire  deference  for  the  fathers  and  councils  of  the 
first  five  centuries,*  and  with  the  great  lights,  the 
learned  personages  of  that  admirable  and  pious  epoch. 
I  have  quoted  many  testimonies  from  them  in  the 
fourth  letter  of  the  Discussion  Amicale.  There,  you 
may  see,  my  dear  sir,  several  passages  to  which  it 

*  "Let  us  stand  to  the  judgment  and  decision  of  antiquity,  and 
embrace  that  saying  of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  as  if  it  came  from  an 
oracle,  let  the  ancient  customs  be  observed." — Bp.  Montague 
Pre/,  to  App.  ad  orig.  Ecclcs. 

"Whilst  men  do  labour  to  bring  into  discredit  the  ancient  Fa- 
thers and  primitive  Churches,  they  derogate  from  themselves  such 
credit  as  they  hunt  after,  and  as  much  as  in  themlieth,  bring  many 
parts  of  religion  into  wonderful  uncertainty. — Bp.  OveraVs  Convo- 
cation Book,  p.  191. 

"Although  scripture  is  the  most  certain  and  safe  rule  of  belief, 
yet  there  being  no  less  veracity  in  the  tongues  than  in  the  hands, 
in  the  preachings  than  the  writings  of  the  apostles:  nay  prior  scrmo 
quam  liber,  prior  senilis  quam  stylus,  saith  Tertullian,  the  apos- 
tles preached  before  they  writ,  planted  Churches  before  they 
addressed  epistles  to  them;  on  these  grounds  I  make  no  scruple  to 
grant  that  apostolical  traditions,  such  as  are  truly  so,  as  well  as 
apostolical  writings,  are  equally  the  matter  of  that  Christian's 
belief,  who  is  equally  secured  by  the  fidelity  of  the  conveyance, 
that  as  one  is  apostolical  writing,  so  the  other  is  apostolical  tra- 
dition."— Dr.  Hammond's  Disc,  of  Heresy. 

"If  any  other  matters  not  yet  received  or  practised  in  our 
Church,  should  be  found  to  be  of  equal  antiquity  and  universality, 
I  declare  it  to  be  my  hearty  desire  that  they  also  maybe  restored: 
for  I  am  well  assured,  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  to  the  time  of  the  council  of  Nice,  and  long  after,  during 
the  fourth  century,  the  Catholic  Church  all  over  the  world  was 
united  in  one  holy  doctrine,  discipline,  and  manner  of  worship." — 
Dr.  BreWs  Introduction  to  his  Independency  of  the  Church,  p.  7. 

"During  the  first  five  centuries,  the  Church  then  pure  and  flour- 
ishing, taught  unmixed  the  faith  which  the  apostles  had  preached." 
Ulntaker  on  Antichrist,  p.  51. 


44  ANSWER  TO  THE 

would  have  been  easy  to  add  a  hundred  more,  from 
St.  Augustine,  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  the  318  bishops 
of  the  great  council  of  Nice,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Epi- 
phanius,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  St. 
Irensus,  all  decisive  upon  the  authority  of  tradition. 

Let  us  stop  at  the  second  century;  and  shew  by 
contemporary  writers,  that  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  the  Church  at  that  period,  were  the  same  as  those 
of  the  first  century.*  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  tes- 
tifies that  "Some  of  those  who  had  immediately  suc- 
ceeded the  apostles,  and  preserved  the  tradition  of 
their  doctrine,  had  lived  even  to  this  time,  in  order  to 

"This  general  consent  of  our  so  profoundly  judicious  Protes- 
tants, in  appealing  unto  the  primitive  Church  for  the  space  of  the 
first  four  hundred  and  forty  years  after  Christ,  thus  acknowledged 
by  our  adversaries,  may  well  serve  for  a  just  reproof  of  their 
slander,  who  usually  upbraid  Protestants  with  contempt  of  all 

antiquity:  for  here  even  old  Rome  is  commended Protestants 

are  so  far  from  suffering  the  limitation  of  the  first  440  jears,  that 
they  give  the  Romanists  the  scope  of  the  first  500  or  600  years,  as 
our  adversaries  themselves  do  acknowledge." — Morton's  Catholic 
ilppealc  for  Protestants.  Edit.  London,  1610,  book  4,  chap.  30,  page 
573. 

"It  cannot  be  doubted,1'  says  the  learned  Usher,  "that  St. 
Patrick  had  a  peculiar  veneration  for  the  church  of  Rome,  whence 
he  had  been  sent  to  labour  in  the  conversion  of  our  island;  and  I 
myself  had  I  lived  at  that  time,  should  have  submitted  as  willingly 
to  the  judgment  of  that  church,  as  to  that  of  any  other  in  the 
world:  so  sacred  is  the  esteem  which  I  cherish  for  the  integrity 
of  that  church  in  those  happy  days."  (At  the  end  of  Usher's  Reli- 
gion of  the  Irish,  p.  87,  of  the  5th  century — epoch  of  St.  Patrick. 

These  will  suffice:  but  you  may  find  thirty  other  authorities  in 
Wix's  Reflections,  2d  edition,  London,  1319. 

®It  would  be  easy  to  prove,  from  your  best  divines,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  apostles  was  taught  in  its  integrity,  down  to  the 
5th  century  inclusively.  Besides  the  passages  of  Usher,  Morton, 
and  Whitaker  just  quoted,  I  could  cite  many  others  produced  by 
Mr.  Wix.  The  common  opinion  of  your  able  theologians  is,  that 
the  first  four  general  councils  ought  to  be  received,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  same  space  of  time  considered  as  apostolical.  This 
observation  overturns  the  first  principle  laid  down  by  Mr.  Faber  in 
his  preface,  where  he  requires  in  proof  of  apostolicity,  a  chain 
of  witnesses  uninterrupted  up  to  the  apostles  themselves.     I  could 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  45 

scatter  and  cultivate  the  seed  of  the  true  faith."   What 
St.  Clement  testified  with  regard  to  Egypt,  analogy- 
allows  us  to  suppose  for  several  other  churches;  such 
for  instance,  as  that  of  Smyrna,  whose  bishop,  St. 
Polycarp,  martyred  at  the  age  of  a  hundred,  in  166, 
had  actually  been  a  disciple  of  St.  John.     "God,"  as 
I  observed  in  the  Discussion  Amicale,  v.  I.  p.  194, 
in  his  designs  of  protection  for  his  Church,  permitted 
that  in  the  midst  of  persecutions  and  dangers,  some 
few  of  these  primitive  and  holy  bishops,  should  have 
their  career  protracted  to  a  very  advanced  age;  and 
as  heretofore  in  the  beginning  of  the  world,  the  pa- 
triarchs by  means  of  their  long  lives,  transmitted  more 
easily  to  posterity  what  they  had  learned  from  their 
fathers  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  dogmas  of  re- 
ligion, and  the  principal  traits  of  the  antediluvian  his- 
tory, so  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  these  venerable 
old  men  served  to  bear  witness  that  their  faith  was 
exactly  the  same,  which  they  had  received  trom  the 
apostles  or  their  immediate  disciples."     Tertullian  in- 
forms us  by  what  means  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles 
was  preserved  in  the  various  churches.    I  cannot  help 
placing  before  you  a  very  curious  passage  on  this  sub- 
ject.    u According  to  the  order  prescribed  for  all  the 
churches,  councils  are  assembled  in  certain  parts  of 
Greece,  where  the  most  important  affairs  are  discus- 
oblige  him,  by  the  superior  authority  of  his  own  masters  in  theo- 
logy, from  the  first  apologist  of  your  reformation  Jewel,  down  to 
the  doctors  of  our  own  times,  to  admit  as  apostolical  the  doctrine 
of  the  3d,  4th,  and  5th  centuries.     But  I  will  not  rigorously  assert 
my  rights,  and  he  ought  to  thank  me  for  my  forbearance.     I  at- 
tach myself  to  one  of  his  opinions,  page  32,  where  he  acknow- 
ledges that  the  doctrine  of  the  second  century  was  truly  that  of 
the  apostles:  let  us  be  satisfied  with  this,  and  endeavour  to  make 
him  also  satisfied.     Among  the   witnesses  of  the  2d  century,  I 
reckon  St.  Cyprian,  born  about  the  year  190,  converted  by  the 
aged  Cecilius— Origen,  born  about  165 — Tertullian,  born  about 
160 — St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  about  151 — St.  Irenaeus,  about 
120— Theophilus  of  Antioch,  about  115— St.  Justin  in  the  year 
103. 

5 


46  ANSWER  TO  THE 

sed  in  common;  and  this  representation  of  the  whole 
Christian  name  obtains  among  us  the  greater*  venera- 
tion."*    From  this  institution   resulted   that  kind  of 
consanguinity  in  doctrine,  which  existed,  as  he  says 
in  his  usual  energetic  manner,  among  all  the  churches, 
of  the  Christian  world.     Does  he  not  likewise  refer 
those,  who  wished  to  know  the  tradition  of  the  apos- 
tles, to  the  churches  founded  by  them,  such  as   Cor- 
inth, Ephesus,  &c.     See,  he   adds,  what    Rome    has 
learned,  "what  she  teaches,  and  the  perfect  harmony 
between  her  doctrine,  and  that  of  the  churches  of  Af- 
rica."     "It   is   asked,"    says   he   in   another    place, 
whether  no  tradition  is  to  be  admitted  but  what  is 
written" — this  is  precisely  the  idea  sometimes  affected 
by  Mr.  Faber;  and  here  follows  its  refutation — "To 
begin  with  baptism;  when  we  go  down  into  the  water, 
we  protest  in  the  Church  and  under  the  hand  of  the 
bishop,  that  we  renounce  Satan,  his  pomps   and  his 
angels:  then  we   are  plunged  three   times,   answering 
something  more  than  our   Saviour  prescribed  in  the 
gospel.     When  we  come  out  of  the  water,  we  taste 
a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey;  and  from  that  time  we 
abstain  for  a  week  from  our  daily  bath,     The  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Eucharist,  ordained  by  our  Saviour  at  sup- 
per, and  for  all,  we  take  in  our  assemblies  before  day- 
light, and  only  from  the  hand  of  him  who  officiates; 
we  offer  for  the  dead;  we  celebrate  annually  the  na- 
tivities of  the  martyrs.     You  ask  me  some  law  of  the 
scriptures  for  these  usages  and  others  like  them;  you 
will  find  no  such  law.     But  we  produce  you  tradition 
which  adds  them,  custom  which  confirms  them,  and 
faith  which  practices  thcm."f 

-    No  doubt  Tertullian  extolled  with  reason  the  faith 
of  the    churches  founded   by  the  apostles,  when  he 

•Treatise  on  Fasting,  ch.  13.  To  these  councils  here  spoken  of 
by  Tertullian,  our  learned  Usher  refers  with  equal  sagacity  and 
justice  the  most  ancient  apostolic  canons.  See  what  he  says  of 
them  in  Cotelier,  No.  8,  T.  1,  p.  430. 

t  Lib.  de  Corona,  n.  3,  4. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  47 

directed  persons  desirous  of  knowing  what  doctrine 
had  been  revealed,  to  such  of  the  churches  as  were 
nearest  to  him.  But  St.  Irenaeus,  before  him,  had  ren- 
dered the  most  glorious  homage  to  the  see  of  St. 
Peter;  eminent  above  all  others,  when  he  declared* 
"that  all  the  churches  in  the  world  should  be  in  good 
understanding  and  accordance  with  that  of  Rome, 
where  the  tradition  derived  from  the  apostles  is  pre- 
served in  its  integrity."  Thus  the  particular  councils 
which,  according  to  the  first  quotation  from  Tertullian, 
were  held  in  Greece,  according  to  the  rule  establislied 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Roman  Church,  the  centre  of  all  churches,  according 
to  St!  Irenasus,  were  the  powerful  motives  which  pre- 
served all  the  faithful  in  unity  of  faith  and  episcopal 
government. 

I  will  conclude  this  digression  on  the  second  century 
by  Hegesippus,  who  in  his  old  age  wrote  at  Rome,  in 
176,  under  Pope  Eleutherius.  That  Pope  succeeded 
Soter,  and  Hegesippus  had  seen  him  the  deacon  of 
Anicetus.  Hegesippus  had  travelled-  from  Jerusalem 
into  Greece  and  the  islands,  had  conversed  with  a 
great  number  of  bishops,  and  testifies  in  a  fragment 
preserved  by  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  4,)  "that  in 
every  Church* was  held  the  self-same  doctrine,  which 
is  contained  in  the  law,  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the 
preaching  of  our  Saviour. 

Although  Mr.  Faber,  p.  32,  acknowledges  the  doc- 
trine of  the  second  century  to  be  apostolical,  I  have 
thought  myself  bound  to  place  again  before  you,  de- 
cisive proofs  and  undeniable  testimonials  of  it.  I  have 
thought  it  the  more  necessary  to  fix  your  ideas,  and 
confirm  them  upon  this  important  point,  as  those  of 
the  Rector  are  wavering;  and  if  he  appears,  at  p.  32, 
to  admit  the  authority  of  the  second  century,  he  seems 
elsewhere   to  reject  altogether  the   tradition  of  the 

•Lib.  3,  contra  Haeres,  ch.  3. 


48  ANSWER  TO  THE 

primitive  Church.  Without  looking  farther  than  page 
35,  he  will  hear  nothing  of  decisions,  either  of  Rome 
or  of  any  other  councils.  He  will  have  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  controversies. — 
uAs  no  one  pretends,"  says  he,  "that  we  possess 
any  other  written,  and  therefore  any  other  certain 
revelation;  we  must  evidently  begin  with  rejecting 
every  doctrine  and  every  practice  built  upon  such 
doctrine,  which  have  clearly  no  foundation  in  Holy 
Scripture."  Thus  apostolical  tradition  in  this  place 
goes  for  nothing:  but  to  whom  does  it  belong  to  in- 
terpret the  Holy  Scripture?  Is  it  to  be  delivered  up 
to  private  judgment,  to  the  insulated  opinion  of  each 
individual?  This  was  Luther's  resolution:  he  proclaim- 
ed for  all,  the  liberty  which  he  had  claimed  for  him- 
self. Without  such  liberty  indeed  his  reformation 
would  never  have  advanced  a  step.  But  he  was  not 
long  without  tasting  the  bitter  fruits,  which  it  brought 
him.  He  thundered  and  blushed  at  the  divisions 
among  his  followers;  but  did  not  put  a  stop  to  them. 
They  have  never  ceased  to  succeed  one  another,  and 
tear  Protestantism  to  pieces.  All  have  sprung  from 
the  same  principle,  and  keep  continually  issuing  from 
it,  like  mushrooms  from  the  earth,  as  Mr.  Faber  him- 
self expresses  it.  In  a  word,  this  principle,  which 
gave  life  and  increase  to  the  reformation,  has  progres- 
sively brought  on  its  decline;  and  will  infallibly  cause 
its  death.  Mr.  Faber  sees  it,  and  curses  its  fatal  and 
inevitable  eifects:  let  us  mark  well  this  acknowledg- 
ment. Would  Heaven,  that  his  brethren  and  supe- 
riors would  lift  up  their  voices  with  him  to  sound  the 
same  warning  throughout  England!  But  when  a  prin- 
ciple is  acknowledged  to  be  thus  monstrously  abusive, 
it  is  not  enough  to  deplore  it;  they  should  have  courage 
enough  to  renounce  its  consequences.  The  first  of 
these,  not  to  mention  others  in  this  place,  was  schism. 
Let  then  the  Established  Church  return  without  delay 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  49 

to  unity.    This  must  be;  or  the  sects  she  lias  produced 
will  soon  be  the  death  of  their  mother. 

Mr.  Faber  assures  us  that  the  principle  of  private 
judgment  was  not  that  of  Parker  and  his  colleagues. 
How  then  did  they  raise  themselves  to  the  head  of 
the  ecclesiastical  government?  Was  it  not  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  discipline  universally  established;  in  oppo- 
sition to  their  spiritual  superiors,  and  in  open  revolt 
against  them,  and  the  canons  of  the  Church?  It  was 
then  by  exalting  their  private  opinions  above  the  doc- 
trine universally  received.  The  Rector  calls  those 
reformers  wise  and  venerable,  whom  he  beholds  ne- 
vertheless enthroned  in  sees,  which  were  not  vacant, 
but  occupied  by  a  right,  which  violence  could  neither 
give  nor  take  away,  by  bishops  who  sacrificed  their 
temporal  interests  to  the  duties  of  conscience,  and  the 
divine  and  ecclesiastical  laws  of  episcopal  govern- 
ment. Mr.  Faber  is  in  admiration  at  the  conduct  of 
these  intruders,  p.  40— he  proposes  it  as  a  model  in 
preference  to  the  decrees  of  general  councils.*  A 
miserable  and  anticanonical  convocation  of  certain 
minds  groveling  before  the  temporal  power,  and  in  re- 
bellion against  the  Church  constitutes  an  authority 
with  him;  and  all  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  his  eyes  possess  none !  Can  you  conceive,  sir,  a 
blindness,  a  delirium  equal  to  this?  Can  the  perver- 
sion of  reason  go  farther?  How  strong  then  must 
be  the  power  of  early  education,  of  self-love,  party 
spirit  and  prejudice,  even  in  minds  of  superior  cul- 
tivation !  But  O  God  !  what  will  those  ministers  an- 
swer at  thy  tribunal  on  a  future  day,  who  have  led 
their  people  astray  by  such  instructions ! 

However,  let  us  see  what  these  "wise  and  venera- 
ble reformers,"  these  great  models  of  Mr.  Faber's, 
did  at  their  convocation  in  1562.     According  to  him, 

•"Nothing  ought  to  be  more  venerable  upon  earth  than  the  de- 
cision of  a  true   oecumenical    council." — Leibnitz,  Letter  to  the 
Dutchess  of  Bmnswick,  July  2,  16U4. 
5* 


50  ANSWER  TO  THE 

when  the  Holy  Scriptures  did  not  give  them  sufficient 
light,  they  had  recourse  to  the  primitive  Church.     I 
know  perfectly  wTell  that  they  did  no  such  thing;  but 
let  the  Rector's  assertion  pass:  and  since  he  recom- 
mends the  imitation  of  this  pretended  example,  here 
we  are  once  more  led  back  by  himself  to  the  primi- 
tive Church.     Now  at  least  let  us  endeavour  to  keep 
him  to  it.     After  the  repugnance  he  has  but  too  often 
manifested  towards  it,  he  seems  now  to  return  to  it  in 
good  earnest,  against,  his  will  it  would  appear,  but 
carried  on  by  a  force  which  is  irresistible.     At  page 
42,  he  mentions  among  the  doctors  of  the  primitive 
Church,  Justin,   Clement  of  Alexandria,   Tertullian, 
Origen  and  Cyprian;  and  adds  as  follows:  "The  se- 
veral writers  here  enumerated,  though  but  few  out  of 
many,  form  a  chain,  which  reaches  up  to  St.  John  and 
the  apostles.     Hence,  if  we  can  be  morally  certain  of 
any  thing,  we  may  be  sure,*  that,  in  their  exposition  of 
scripture,   so  far   as  the  great  leading   doctrines  of 
Christianity    are   concerned,    they    would   proceed, 
either  on  direct  apostolic  authority,  or  at  least  accord- 
ing to  the  then  universally  known  analogy  of  apostolic 
faith."     And  further  on,  he  says,  "Where  in  her  yet 
existing  documents,  the  primitive  Church  is  explicit, 
we  must,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  on  the  principles  of 
right  reason,  submit  ourselves  to  her  decision." 

Then  it  is  proved,  agreed,  and  decided  between  us 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  second  century  was  conforma- 
ble to  that  of  the  first,  and  is  known  to  us  by  the 
writings  of  St.  Cyprian,  Origen,  Tertullian,  St.  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  St.  Irenaeus  and  St.  Justin.  This 
is  amply  sufficient,  sir,  to  enable  you  to  pronounce 
with  safety  upon  the  questions  between  us.  For  if 
you  will  be  at  the  pains  of  looking  once  more  into  my 
Discussion  Jlmicale,  you  will  see  that  the  traditionary 
proofs  of  dogmas  and  practices,  which  I  defend,  reach 
up  at  least  to  the  second  century,  by  means  of  one  or 
other  of  the  very  writers  whom  the  Rector  has  just 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  51 

selected,  and  whom  I  regard  as  well  as  himself  as  un- 
deniable witnesses  of  all  that  was  believed  and  prac- 
tised in  their  times.  From  this  you  will  conclude, 
that  if  he  had  reasoned  consistently  with  himself,  he 
would  have  found  himself  obliged  to  agree  with  my 
book;  since  he  acknowledges  that  every  doctrine  or 
practice  which  ascends  to  the  second  century,  without 
any  known  origin  posterior  to  that  period,  must  be 
apostolical. 

But  pray  explain  to  me,  my  dear  sir,  what  Mr.  Fa- 
ber  means,  for  I  cannot  understand  him,  when  he  pre- 
tends that  the  proof  of  tradition,  aas  employed  by  the 
Bishop  of  Aire  is  a  mere  fallacy,  the  detection  of 
which  is  not  very  difficult" — page  33 — and  when  he 
supposes  that  "I  would  carry  the  chain  down  to  the 
present  time,"  through  a  space  of  nineteen  centuries: 
page  45.  I  confess  that  he  is  here  quite  incompre- 
hensible. Nothing  can  be  more  simple  than  my  rea- 
soning, which  is  absolutely  the  same  as  his  own,  and 
that  of  every  man  of  sense.  In  fact  what  have  I  to 
prove?  The  conformity  of  any  given  doctrine  with 
that  of  the  primitive  Church;  for  instance,  praying  for 
the  dead,  confession,  satisfaction,  or  the  sign  of  the 
cross.  Well,  sir,  am  I  to  lose  my  time  in  extracting 
and  accumulating  testimony  upon  testimony,  from  age 
to  age,  from  our  own  up  to  the  apostles?  Certainly  I 
shall  do  no  such  thing;  and  for  two  reasons:  1st,  be- 
cause the  belief  of  the  last  fourteen  and  fifteen  centu- 
ries is  not  disputed,  but  rather  accused  of  novelty  and 
corruption.  2dly,  because  my  proofs  do  not  derive 
force  from  the  intermediate  generations,  but  power- 
fully from  the  primitive  ages.  My  belief  ought  to  be 
founded  upon  that  of  the  apostolic  times;  and  the  cer- 
tainty that  they  could  not  have  been  deceived  is  also 
my  security.  Leaving  therefore  what  is  not  disputed, 
I  proceed  straight  to  the  fifth  century,  and  by  the  fa- 
thers who  attest  the  doctrine  of  their  time,  I  prove 
that  such  an  article  was  then  taught  and  believed.    In 


52  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  same  manner  I  pass  to  the  fourth  century,  which 
abounds  like  the  fifth  with  ecclesiastical  documents, 
Following  the  same  method,  I  arrive  at  the  third  cen- 
tury, and  take  advantage  of  similar  authorities  which 
I  find  there,  and  which,  though  less  numerous,  are 
sufficiently  so  for  my  purpose.  Thus  I  come  to  St. 
Cyprian,  Origen,  Tertullian,  St.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, St.  Irenaeus,  St.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  and  St. 
Justin;  and  supported  by  these  eminent  personages,  I 
enter  triumphantly  the  second  century,  and  repose  at 
length  with  the  Rector  at  the  fountain  of  pure  and 
apostolic  doctrine.  What  can  he  discover  in  such  a 
progress,  which  is  unfair  and  fallacious?*  If  in  my 
Discussion  Jimicale  I  have  often  quoted  testimonies 
from  the  fifth,  fourth,  and  third  centuries,  it  was  be- 
cause I  was  reasoning  at  the  time  with  able  theolo- 
gians of  your  communion,  who  comprise  the  first  five 
centuries  in  the  primitive  Church.  The  Rector  of 
Long  Newton  has  chosen  to  mutilate  and  confine  it  by 
his  own  private  authority  to  the  second  century.  I 
now  accommodate  myself  with  as  good  grace  as  pos- 
sible to  this  new  fancy  of  the  Rector's,  though  I  see 
what  has  led  him  to  it  very  clearly.  He  was  no 
doubt  sharp-sighted  enough  to  perceive,  and  I  confess 
such  perception  was  just — that  he  would  be  more  vio- 
lently overthrown  by  the  whelming  force  of  the  autho- 
rities which  would  crowd  upon  him  from  the  centuries 
he  has  lopped  off,  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  faith  and 
in  opposition  to  his  own  opinions. 

This  brings  us  to  the  third  chapter;  in  which  Mr. 
Faber  proposes  to  answer  two  of  my  letters;  and  after 
all,  answers  neither.  He  gives  a  summary  of  certain 
arguments,  which  he  supposes  to  be  mine,  but  which 

•"In  this  manner  we  can  reason  even  at  this  day;  and  can  there- 
by make  Irenaeus1  and  Tcrtullian's  argument  our  own,  provided 
we  have  first  proved  that  the  faith  we  contend  for  is  the  very 
same  that  obtained  in  the  churches  of  that  age."  Waterland  on 
Holy  Trin.  p.  380. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  53 

are  foreign  to  my  meaning.  If  I  sought  to  exhibit  all 
his  deficiencies  in  this  chapter*  it  would  be  necessary 
to  consume  a  hundred  pages,  to  expose  the  five  of 
which  it  consists.  I  will  confine  myself  to  the  defence 
of  what  I  wrote  upon  the  sixth  article  of  the  convoca- 
tion of  1562.  He  takes  up  its  cause;  and  forgetting 
once  more  that  he  has  just  acknowledged  the  authority 
of  apostolical  tradition,  at  least  to  the  end  of  the  se- 
cond century,  he  maintains  here,  with  those  whom  he 
styles  his  profound  and  wise  reformers,  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  contains  all  that  is  essential  to  salvation.  If 
this  be  so — since  1  am  compelled  to  use  repetitions — 
what  becomes  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  infants, 
and  the  sanctification  of  Sunday?  The  Scripture  says 
nothing  about  either;  and  yet  the  Rector  admits  both, 
equally  with  ourselves.  What  becomes  even  of  the 
authenticity  of  Scripture?  For  this  can  only  be  prov- 
ed by  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Church;  and  you 
will  soon  see  the  Rector  compelled,  in  spite  of  himself, 
to  own  it;  thus,  in  the  same  page,  he  admits  tradition; 
and  rejects  it,  in  favour  of  the  sixth  article  of  his  pro- 
found and  wise  reformers. 

It  is  the  misfortune  of  those  who  take  up  a  false  po- 
sition, to  find  themselves  unavoidably  assailed  on  all 
sides  by  difficulties.  Tradition  presented  inextrica- 
ble difficulties  to  the  chief  reformers;  they  exclaim, 
"Away  with  tradition!  The  Bible!  the  Bible  alone!" 
and  drew  up  their  sixth  article.  They  did  not  see, 
and  the  Rector  who  defends  them  does  not  see,  that 
new  and  insoluble  objections  are  the  only  result.  In 
fact,  they  there  lay  down  as  a  fundamental  principle, 
that  the  scriptures  contain  all  that  is  necessary  for 
salvation.  This  principle,  unless  they  drew  it  gratui- 
tously from  their  own  heads,  ought  to  have  been  deriv- 
ed from  the  Scripture.  If  so,  let  the  Rector  prove  it 
to  us:  let  him  produce  one. single  text,  whe/e  any  one 
of  the  inspired  writers  teaches  that  we  may  confine 
ourselves,  both  for  faith  and  practice,  to  what  is  writ- 


54  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ten;  one  solitary  place,  where  he  declares  that  the 
Scripture  delivers  all  that  the  apostles  taught;  or  if 
you  will,  all  that  is  essential  to  salvation.  But  where 
will  he  meet  with  such  a  passage,  since  we  find  one 
absolutely  contrary,  word  for  word.  "Stand  fast;  and 
hold  the  traditions  which  you  have  learned,  whether 
by  word,  or  by  our  epistle."  2  Thess.  ii.  v.  14.  You 
see  the  apostle  distinguishes  his  verbal,  from  his  epis- 
tolary instructions:  he  prescribes  to  the  Thessalonians, 
to  keep  both  equally;  to  observe  the  doctrines  which 
he  had  given  them  in  words,  and  those  which  he  had 
delivered  in  writing. 

The  Rector  replies  that  this  held  good  at  the  time; 
for,  "when  that  epistle  was  written,  most  certainly  not 

all  the  four  gospels  had  been  published It  is  no 

very  chimerical  supposition,  that  the  matters,  verbally 
delivered  by  St.  Paul,  were  afterward,  in  the  course 
of  God's  providence,  committed  to  faithful  writing. 
Whence  it  would  follow,  that  the  position  contained  in 
the  sixth  article  of  the  angelican  Church,  though  not 
strictly  true  when  the  apostle  wrote  his  second  letter 
to  the  Thessalonians,  may  yet,  in  the  sixteenth  centu- 
ry, have  been  an  incontrovertible  verity."  This  sub- 
terfuge is  not  without  subtility,  and  even  address,  if 
you  would  so  have  it  *  It  is  only  a  pity  that  it  wants 
solidity:  it  betrays  the  Rector's  embarrassment,  and 
but  helps  him  a  little  out  of  it,  to  throw  him  into  con- 
tradiction with  the  Fathers,  with  the  best  theologians 
of  his  own  Church,  and  even  with  himself. 

The  holy  Fathers  had  the  New  Testament  in  their 

hands,  as  well  as  ourselves;  and  yet  they  did  not  cease 

to  insist  on  the  necessity  of  admitting  the  apostolical 

traditions,  and  to  establish  the  obligation  of  so  doing, 

t 

•It  is  borrowed  from  Stillingfleet's  Scripture  and  Tradition  Com- 
pared; from  Dr.  Patrick,  Bishop  of  Ely,  Discourse  on  Tradition;  and 
from  Dr.  Williams,  Bishop  of  Chichester,  Exam,  of  Texts,  &fc — 
See  {Preservative  against  Popery,  vol.  I.  Edit.  London,  in  folio— 
1738. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  55 

upon  this  very  passage  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Thessaloni- 
ans.  St.  Chrysostom  comments  upon  it  thus:  "We 
see  by  this  that  the  apostles  did  not  write  every  thing; 
but  taught  many  things  by  word  of  mouth  only.  But 
whatever  way  they  come  to  us  from  them,  we  are 
equally  obliged  to  believe  them.  Let  us  believe  the 
tradition  of  the  Church;  it  ought  to  be  enough  to  move 
us  to  believe — to  know  that  it  is  a  tradition."*  "I 
should  consume  the  whole  day,"  says  St.  Basil, 
"were  I  to  recount  to  you  all  the  mysteries  transmit- 
ted to  the  Church,  without  the  Scripture. .  .  *  .  Among 
the  dogmas  of  the  Church,  there  are  some  contained 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  others  come  from  tradition;  and 
both  liave  equal  force,  with  regard  to  our  pious  vene- 
ration. For  it  would  be  mortally  wounding  the  gos- 
pel, to  regard  traditions  as  things  of  little  authority. "f 
Yet,  this  Mr.  Faber  does;  according  to  St.  Basil,  he 
mortally  wounds  the  gospel,  by  rejecting  all  that  is  not 
written.  "We  do  not  rind  all  in  the  Scripture,"  says 
St.  Epiphanius,  "because  the  apostles,  who  have  left 
us  many  things  in  writing,  have  also  left  us  others  by 
tradition. "J  St.  Epiphanius,  then,  was  far  from  teach- 
ing that  all  verbal  instructions  were  finally  record- 
ed in  the  New  Testament;  and  among  others,  those 
which  were  to  be  observed,  according  to  the  precept 
of  St.  Paul.  Call  to  mind  in  this  place,  sir,  the  most 
illustrious  example  of  anitiquity,  that  of  the  council  of 
Nice.  Eusebius,  who  had  been  a  member  of  it,  tes- 
tifies, "that  the  bishops  opposed  the  false  subtilities 
of  the  Arians,  by  the  grand  truths  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  ancient  belief  of  the  Church,  from  the  Jlpostles 
to  that  time."  And  Gelasius  informs  us,  that  after  having 
a  long  time,  maturely  and  fully  considerecf  this  adorable 

*  St.  Chrysost.  Serm.  on  the  2d  Ep.  to  the  Thess.  ch.  2. 

f  On  the  Holy  Spirit,  ch.  27,  on  the  same  passage  of  St.  Paul. 

\  Heres.  75,  where  you  see  verbal  traditions  distinguished  from 
written  traditions,  long  after  the  publication  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 


56  ANSWER  TO  THE 

subject — the  divinity  of  Christ — it  appeared  to  all  ours 
at  once,  that  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Word  ought 
to  be  defined  as  of  faith,  in  the  same  manner  as  this 
faith  had  been  transmitted  to  us  by  our  holy  Fathers 
after  the  Jlpostles. 

The  Rector  and  his  sixth  article,  are  no  better  in 
accord  with  your  learned  theologians,  than  with  the 
318  bishops  of  the  council  of  Nice.  He  that  will  not 
submit  to  the  current  evidence  of  the  ancient  liturgies, 
Fathers  and  councils,  may  bring  into  controversy,  not 
to  mention  other  things  received  by  the  Church  in  all 
ages,  the  divine  authority  of  the  inspired  writings,  in- 
fant baptism,  episcopacy,  the  Lord's  day,  and  even 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  and 
so,  at  once  blow  up  the  Catholic  faith  and  Church."* 

In  ecclesiastical  history,  and  there  only,  I  may  say, 
is  the  decision  of  all  controverted  points  in  divinity,  ei- 
ther as  to  doctrine  or  discipline.  For  every  one  of 
them  must  be  determined  by  matters  of  fact.  It  is  not 
refining,  and  criticisms,  and  our  notions  of  things,  but 
what  that  faith  was,  which  at  the  first  was  delivered 
to  the  saints.  This  is  matter  of  fact,  and  must  be  de- 
termined by  evidence.  And  where  any  text  of  the 
New  Testament  is  disputed,  the  best  evidence  is  from 
those  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who  lived  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  learned  the  faith  from  the  mouths  of  the  apos- 
tles themselves,  such  as  St.  Clement,  Ignatius,  Poly- 
carp,  &c.  These  must  best  know  the  sense  and 
meaning  of  the  words  delivered  by  the  apostles.  And 
next  to  them,  they  to  whom  they  did  deliver  the  same, 
and  so  on  through  the  several  ages  of  the  Church,  to 
this  day.  And  those  doctrines,  and  that  government 
of  the  Churcfi,  which  has  this  evidence,  must  be  the 
truth.  And  they  who  refuse  to  be  determined  by  this 
rule,  are  justly  to  be  suspected;  nay,  they  give  evi- 
dence against  themselves,  that  they  are  departed  from 

*Dr.  Hicks  on  the  Christian  Priesthood,  vol.  I,  p,  145. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  57 

the  truth."*  Those  who  admit  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, upon  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  will  find  them- 
selves hard  put  to  it  for  a  reason  why  they  reject  tlie 
very  same  testimony  in  the  case  of  church  government. 
For,  to  admit  their  testimony  in  one  case,  and  to  reject 
it  in  another,  equally^clear  and  universal,  is  to  play  fast 
and  loose,  and  to  act  upon  no  principles  at  all."t  "As 
to  the  matter  in  hand,  the  defender's  persuasion  is  this: 
1 .  Where  there  is  any  plain  opposition  between  Scrip- 
ture and  tradition — there,  the  Scripture  must  be  fol- 
lowed. 2.  That  no  such  plain  contradiction  is  to  be 
found,  where  tradition  appears  early  and  general.  3 
That  tradition  is  necessary  to  explain  some  passages  of 
Scripture,  ichere  the  sense  is  not  clear  and  indisputable, 
(and  what  is  there  that  men  will  not  dispute?)  and  that 
without  this  supplemental  assistance,  neither  the  ne- 
cessity of  infant  baptism,  nor  the  obligation  to  keep 
Sunday,  can  be  made  out.  4.  That  without  tradition, 
we  cannot  prove  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the 
word  of  God,"  &C.J  "The  admitting  such  a  second- 
ary proof,  (tradition,)  in  this  case,  is  not  derogating 
from  Scripture  authority,  but  is  confirming  and  strength- 
ening it  in  more  views  than  one."§  uThere  would 
scarcely  be  the  smallest  doubt  that  this  doctrine  of 
the  Scripture,  on  the  sacrifice,  came  down  from  the 
apostles,  and  that,  consequently,  it  was  necessary  to 
hold  to  it,  even  though  we  should  find  not  a  word  for 
it  in  the  writings  of  the  phrophets  and  apostles;  for  the 
precept  of  St.  Paul  is  universal — My  brethren,  stand 
firm,  and  hold  fast  the  traditions  which  you  have  learn- 
ed, whether  by  word  of  mouth,  or  by  our  epistles."|| 
I  am  happy  in  being  able  to  quote  to  the  Rector  of 

*Mr.  Leslie  Dis.  concern.  Eccl.  Hist.  p.  2  and  3. 
t  -Mr.  Reeve's  Pref.  concerning  the  right  use  of  the  Fathers,  rol.  1 , 
p.  16. 
X  Collier's  Vindication,  part  1,  p.  2  and  3. 
\  Waterland  on  the  H.  Trinity,  p.  401. 
(I  Dr.  Grabe  on  a  passage  of  St.  Irenaus. 


58  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Long  Newton,  the  very  doctor  from  whom  he  has  bor- 
rowed what  I  have  called  a  subterfuge.  You  shall 
hear,  then,  Dr.  Patrick,  Bishop  of  Ely.  The  following 
is  from  his  discourse  on  tradition:  "For  in  all  this 
Christians  are  agreed,  that  whatsoever  was  delivered 
by  Christ  from  God  the  Father,  or  by  the  apostles 
from  Christ,  is  to  be  embraced  and  firmly  retained, 
whether  it  be  written  or  not  written;  that  makes  no 
difference  at  all,  if  we  can  be  certain  it  came  from 
him  or  them.  For  what  is  contained  in  the  Holy 
Scripture  hath  not  its  authority  because  it  is  written, 
but  because  it  came  from  God.  If  Christ  said  a  thing, 
it  is  enough;  we  ought  to  submit  to  it:  but  we  must 
first  know  that  he  said  it;  and  let  the  means  of  knowing 
it  be  what  they  will,  if  we  can  certainly  know  he  said 
it,  we  yield  to  it."*  And  at  the  end  of  the  first  part 
of  his  discourse: 

"Whatever  is  delivered  to  us  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  we  receive  as  the  word  of 
God,  which  we  think  is  sufficiently  declared  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  if  any  one  can  certainly  prove 
by  any  authority  equal  to  that  which  brings  the  Scrip- 
tures to  us,  that  there  is  any  thing  else  delivered  by 
them,  we  receive  that  also.  The  controversy  will 
soon  be  at  an  end:  we  are  ready  to  embrace  it,  when 
any  such  thing  can  be  produced. 

"Nay  we  have  that  reverence  for  those  who  suc- 
ceeded the  apostles,  that  what  they  have  unanimously 
delivered  to  us  as  the  sense  of  any  doubtful  place,  we 
receive  it  and  seek  no  farther. 

"In  short,  traditions  we  do  receive,  but  not  all  that 
are  called  by  that  name.  Those,  which  have  sufficient 
authority;  but  not  those,  which  are  imposed  upon  us 
by  the  sole  authority  of  one  particular  church,  as- 
suming a  power  over  all  the  rest.f3 


*  Introduction,  parag.  iv.  p.  8 

|End  of  1st  part,  parag.  viii.  p.  26  and  27. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  59 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  last  stroke  is  directed  against 
the  particular  Church  of  Rome,  "with  which,  never- 
theless, St.  Ireneeus  declares,  that  all  others  ought  to 
agree,  on  account  of  its  acknowledged  preeminence 
and  authority."  But  Rome  is  not  concerned  here 
alone;  and  Dr.  Patrick  might  well  have  abstained  from 
wrongfully  shewing  hostility  and  injustice  towards  her. 
He  requires,  before  he  considers  himself  obliged  to 
admit  any  tradition,  the  proof  of  its  being  apostolical; 
here  he  is  right.  And  the  proof  which  Tertullian,  St. 
Basil,  St.  Augustin,  and  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  gave  to 
the  heretics  of  their  times,  we  also  give  to  our  separat- 
ed brethren  in  England  and  elsewhere.  When  they 
saw  an  article  of  faith,  of  discipline,  or  practice  gener- 
ally established  in  the  Church,  they  attributed  its  origin 
to  the  teaching  of  the  apostles;  provided,  however, 
that  no  more  recent  beginning  of  it  was  known.  In 
fact,  it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  other  cause  to  such 
unanimity. 

Mr.  Faber  is  so  good  as  to  make  me  the  following 
"large  concession,"  as  he  terms  it:  "Let  his  Lordship 
prove  that  the  traditions  of  the  modern  Latin  Church, 
are  the  identical  verbal  traditions  of  St.  Paul,  and  the 
Anglican  Church,  I  feel  assured,  will  forthwith  re- 
ceive them."  He  must  allow  me  to  tell  him,  that  such 
a  sentence  leads  me  to  wish  that  he  possessed  a  fund 
of  sounder  theology.  First,  because  the  present  La- 
tin Church  does  not,  and  even  cannot,  admit  of  any 
other  apostolical  traditions,  than  those,  which  were 
admitted  in  the  age  of  St.  Augustin.  Secondly,  be- 
cause it  is  not  according  to  right  notions  of  theology, 
to  distinguish  in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  the 
teaching  of  St.  Peter,  of  St.  Paul,  of  St.  Matthew,  or 
of  any  others  in  particular.  Let  him  consult  his  an- 
cient masters;  and  he  will  learn  from  Dr.  Stillingfleet, 
among  others,  that  "We  have  all  the  reason  in  the 
world  to  believe  that  the  apostles  delivered  one  and 
the  6ame  faith  to  all  the  churches,  having  the  same 


60  ANSWER  TO  THE 

infallible  spirit  to  direct  them."*  This  sameness  of 
teaching,  is  the  source  of  oral  and  apostolical  tradi- 
tions; to  that  must  be  attributed,  all  that  is  uniformly 
found  in  all  the  Christian  liturgies  of  the  fifth  century, 
prayer  for  the  dead,  confession,  satisfaction,  &c.  I 
have  developed  the  proofs  of  this,  in  my  Discussion 
Amicale. 

Allow  me  to  present  you  one  more  quotation  at  the 
end  of  those  already  drawn  from  your  own  theolo- 
gians. It  may  perhaps  be  a  little  bitter  to  you  to  hear 
the  first  of  your  apologists,  the  celebrated  Jewel,  thus 
express  himself  on  the  subject  of  tradition.  "Although 
we  have  departed  from  that  Church,  which  they  call 
Catholic;  ....  it  is  sufficient  for  us  that  we  have  de- 
parted from  that  Church, ....  which  with  our  own 
eyes  we  plainly  saw  had  deviated  from  the  holy  Fa- 
thers, and  from  the  primitive  and  Catholic  Church. — 
But  we  have  approached,  as  near  as  possible,  to  the 
Church  of  the  apostles  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Bishops 
and  Fathers,  which  we  know  was  sound,  and,  as 
Tertullian  says,  a  spotless  virgin,  "f 

From  this  passage  it  follows  that  your  Established 
Church  separated  from  ours;  that  it  made  a  schism 
between  us;  and  why?  Because  according  to  Jewel, 
our  Church  had  visibly  departed  from  the  Holy  Fa- 
thers and  the  primitive  Church.  Then  according  to 
him,  as  well  as  in  my  belief,  we  must  attach  ourselves 
not  to  the  Scriptures  alone,  but  also,  and  according  to 
the  precept  of  St.  Paul,  to  the  oral  traditions  known 
by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Fathers;  we  must  sepa- 
rate from  those  who  separate  from  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  Church.  This  is  precisely  what 
I  maintain  against  Mr.  Faber,  whilst  he  holds  against 
Bishop  Jewel  and  myself,  that  it  is  sufficient  to  be 
guided  exclusively  by  the  Scripture. 

*  Stillingfleet's  Sermon  on  Tradition. 

•\JeweVs  Jlpology,  section  x. — CampbeWs  Translation* 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  61 

In  his  celebrated  sermon  at  St.  Paul's  Cross  in 
1550,  three  years  before  the  publication  of  his  Apo- 
logy, Jewel  exclaimed  thus:  aO  Gregory !  O  Augus- 
tin !  O  Jerome !  O  Chrysostom !  O  Leo  !  O  Diony- 

sius !   O  Anacletus !  &c If  we   be   deceived 

herein,  ye  are  they  that  have  deceived  us.  You  have 
taught  us  these  schisms  and  divisions,  you  have  taught 
us  these  heresies.'"  After  this,  enumerating  at  length 
the  controverted  points  on  the  Eucharist,  he  denies 
that  in  the  first  six  centuries,  the  real  presence,  the 
change  of  substance,  the  adoration  of  Jesus  Christ 
present  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine  were 
ever  taught;  and  continues  in  these  words:  "If  any 
man  alive  were  able  to  prove  any  of  these  articles, 
by  any  one  clear  or  plain  clause  or  sentence,  either  of 
the  Scriptures,  or  of  the  old  doctors,  or  of  any  old 
general  council,  or  by  any  example  of  the  primitive 
Church I  speak  not  this  in  vehemency  of  spi- 
rit, or  heat  of  talk,  but  even  as  before  God,  by  the 
way  of  simplicity  and  truth;  ....  if  any  one  of  all  our 
adversaries  be  able  to  avouch  any  one  of  all  these  ar- 
ticles, by  any  such  sufficient  authority  of  Scriptures, 
doctors  or  councils,  as  I  have  required,  as  J  said  be- 
fore, so  say  I  now  again,  I  am  content  to  yield  unto 
him,  and  to  subscribe."  Is  this,  I  beseech  you,  the 
language  of  a  man  who  believes  that  the  Scriptures 
contain  all  that  is  necessary  to  salvation?  Will  Mr. 
Faber  hold  such  language?  Will  he  who  has  read  in 
the  Discussion  Amicale  texts  so  clear  and  numerous 
on  the  real  presence,  the  change  of  substance  and  the 
adoration,  engage  with  me  to  subscribe  upon  one  sin- 
gle testimony  of  the  Fathers,  to  all  the  rest  of  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine?  In  the  place  of  Bishop  Jewel  would 
not  he  have  expressed  himself  rather  as  follows: — 
"Leave  all  your  troublesome  quotations  from  the  Fa- 
thers: shew  me  your  Eucharistic  mysteries  in  the  Bi- 
ble. You  will  not  find  a  syllable  about  them  in  the 
whole  New  Testament.  Tm>  utter  eilenca  prove* 
6* 


62  ANSWER  TO  THE 

two  things;  first,  that  you  are  wrong  in  your  ideas  of 
the  real  presence,  since  these  immediate  consequences 
of  it  are  no  where  to  be  found;  secondly,  that  they 
cannot  in  any  case  claim  our  assent,  since  all  articles 
of  faith  ought  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  and  there 
they  are  not."  But  Jewel  holds  quite  another  lan- 
guage. A  Catholic  Doctor  could  not  express  himself 
more  energetically  on  a  subject  of  pure  oral  tradition, 
or  with  more  veneration  on  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Fathers.  He  was  not  therefore  of  the  opinion  of 
those,  who  two  years  later  drew  up  the  sixth  article. 
Jewel,  it  is  trwe,  had  a  seat  in  their  assembly:  he 
ought  even  to  have  been  the  soul  of  them,  as  he  was 
the  ablest  of  them  all.  How  then  came  he  to  permit 
such  an  article  to  be  composed?  How  came  he  still 
further  to  subscribe  it?  It  is  no  business  of  mine  to 
make  him  appear  consistent  with  himself;*  but  I  flat- 

*Mr.  Faber  is  much  dissatisfied  with  the  anecdote  I  have  re- 
lated of  Bishop  Jewel  in  the  Discussion  Amicale,  vol,  2,  p.  135. 
He  does  not  consider  it  worthy  of  credit.  I  will  remark,  that  it  is 
related  by  Dr.  Smith,  Bishop  of  Chalcedon,  who  printed  it  in 
1654,  at  the  age  of  87  years,  and  who  therefore  was  born  in  1567, 
three  years  at  least  before  the  death  of  Jewel,  which  took  place 
September  22d,  1571.  This  Dr.  Smith  venerated  by  all  who  knew 
him,  after  a  long  and  saintly  career,  left  behind  him  a  singular 
reputation  for  virtue  and  piety.  Such  a  character  could  not  be 
suspected  of  falsehood.  He  had  printed  the  anecdote  first  in 
1614,  when  the  two  Catholic  Lords  were  still  living  from  whom 
he  had  received  it,  and  also  the  physician,  Dr.  Twin,  who  had 
told  it  to  these  two  Lords,  as  he  had  heard  it  from  Genebrand, 
the  chaplain  of  Jewel,  to  whom  the  Bishop  when  dying  had  con- 
fided it. 

In  1614  it  would  have  been  easy  and  natural  to  contradict  this 
narration.  But  Mr.  Faber  comes  too  late  at  this  time  of  day  to 
call  it  in  question.  He  has  no  proofs  whatever  to  weigh  against 
the  authority  of  the  pious  and  venerable  Dr.  Smith,  and  justify 
him  in  accusing  the  good  Bishop  either  of  imposture  or  credulity 
in  believing  or  publishing  such  a  calumny.  For  the  rest,  Jewel, 
brought  up  a  Catholic,  became  a  concealed  Protestant  under  Henry 
Till,  a  declared  friend  of  the  Zwinglian  Peter  Martyr,  under  Ed- 
ward VI.  a  Catholic  under  Mary  for  a  short  time,  a  Zwinglian  during 
his  stay  in  Germany,  and  Episcopalian  in  fine  under  Elizabeth, 
from  whom  he  did  not  scruple  to  accept  the  see  of  Salisbury — 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  63 

tcr  myself  that  neither  Mr.  Faber  nor  any  other  will 
henceforth  attempt  to  defend  the  sixth  article,  and 
support  its  doctrine. 

What  appears  particularly  to  embarrass  and  cha- 
grin Mr.  Faber,  is  that  he  finds  himself  compelled  to 
have  recourse  to  tradition  at  the  very  time  when  he 
has  just  pronounced  it  of  no  use.  For  being  soon 
obliged  to  express  himself  upon  the  canon  of  the 
Scriptures,  he  speaks  thus;  page  51 — "In  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Bishop,  tradition  is  of  such  vital  impor- 
tance, that  the  very  canon  of  Scripture  itself  depends 
upon  it.  By  renouncing,  therefore,  the  tradition  of 
the  Latin  Church,  we  effectively  invalidate  the  autho- 
rity of  the  canon  of  Scripture."  Admire  the  candour 
of  the  Rector.  Without  appearing  so  to  do,  he  dex- 
terously makes  me  substitute  the  tradition  of  the 
Latin  Church,  which  I  never  once  mentioned,  for  the 
universal  tradition,  which  is  the  sole  subject  of  the 
present  question.  "One  might  almost  imagine,"  he 
adds,  "that  our  Latin  brethren  deemed  us  altogether 
ignorant  of  the  very  existence  of  the  early  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers."  No,  sir,  we  imagine  no  such  thing; 
they  are  in  your  hands:  we  only  lament  that  you  after 
all  abandon  them.  Is  not  primitive  tradition  com- 
posed in  fact  from  their  writings  and  testimonies? 
Did  you  not  receive  from  their  hands  the  canon  of 
the  Scriptures?  You  are  ready  yourselves  to  assure 
us  that  you  did  so:  "we  resort  not  to  the  naked  dog- 
matical authority  of  the  see  of  Rome" — you  tell  us 
with  a  tone  of  harshness,  and  a  want  of  politeness 
more  in  character  with  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries  than  with  our  own — "but  to  the  sufficient 
evidence  borne  to  that  effect  in  the  yet  existing  docu- 

He  was  possessed  of  much  information  considering  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  and  the  shortness  of  his  life.  It  has  been  said  of 
him,  from  his  writings  and  conduct,  that  he  had  a  good  memory, 
but  little  judgment. 


64  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ments  of  the  primitive  Church."  Undoubtedly,  and 
this  is  what  I  have  often  represented  to  you.  You 
ought  then  in  prudence  to  have  given  up  your  sixth 
article:  you  ought  not  to  have  set  out  with  declaring 
the  Scripture  alone  sufficient  for  salvation;  and  that 
the  instructions  verbally  given  by  the  apostles  had 
been  afterwards  inserted  in  the  writings  subsequently 
published  by  them.  You  ought  not  to  have  said,  at 
the  very  time  when  you  were  forced  to  observe  your- 
self the  precept  of  St.  Paul,  that  it  did  not  apply  to 
us,  and  was  even  inapplicable  very  soon  after  it  was 
given.  In  fine,  you  ought  not  to  have  maintained  with 
so  much  assurance  that  the  Scripture  was  all-suffi- 
cient, at  the  moment  when  you  were  seeking  for 
apostolical  instructions  in  the  Fathers,  and  apart  from 
the  Scripture,  to  prove  even  its  authenticity.  Save 
yourself,  if  you  can,  from  the  charge  of  self-contra- 
diction; and  look  out,  if  you  please,  some  other  than 
me  to  make  you  consistent  with  yourself. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  65 


PART  THE  SECOND. 


ON  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST. 


CHAPTER  THE  FIRST. 

When  I  received  a  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the 
Rev.  G.  S.  Faber,  Dec.  20,  1825,  I  imagined  that  I 
should  find  him  a  man  of  learning  well  versed  in  theo- 
logical science,  in  the  reading  and  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church;  an  ecclesiastic  the  friend  of 
peace,  deploring  like  myself  the  fatal  separation  ef- 
fected in  the  sixteenth  century,  by  a  policy  as  blind 
as  it  was  interested;  a  pastor  disposed  to  unite  his 
efforts  with  mine  to  re-unite  Christians  but  too  long 
separated,  and  to  bring  back  to  the  bosom  of  unity, 
hearts  formed  for  a  mutual  good  understanding,  for 
loving  each  other,  and  conjointly  strengthening  upon 
earth  the  kingdom  of  our  divine  Saviour.  O  flatter- 
ing hopes  and  charitable  anticipations,  why  did  you  so 
quickly  vanish?  Why  at  the  very  first  reading  did 
my  antagonist's  work  present  only  a  mass  of  imagina- 
ry Difficulties,  laid  to  the  charge  of  what  he  chooses 
to  call  Romanism?  Why  so  much  gall  discharged 
upon  the  Discussion  Amicalc,  and  mixed  with  so  many 
unmerited  praises  of  its  author,  whom  he  does  not 
know?  That  Mr.  Faber  is  an  able  writer,  I  am  quite 
disposed  to  think;  that  he  is  much  followed  as  a 
preacher,  I  can  readily  believe;  but  that  he  is  a 
judicious  and  pacific  controvertist  I  can  boldly  deny; 
and,  sir,  you  will  soon  be  of  my  conviction  by  pursu- 
ing with  me  his  discussion  on  the  Holy  Eucharist. 


66  ANSWER  TO  THE 

I.  He  begins  by  laying  down  the  question  as  he 
understands  it;  page  52. — "The  disagreement  be- 
tween the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Euchar- 
ist, chiefly  respects  the  supposed  process  denominat- 
ed transubstantiation Here,  if  I  mistake  not,  is 

the  main  disagreement  between  the  two  churches. 
With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
they  both  hold  it."  If  the  Rector  were  speaking  of 
the  doctrine  taught  in  England  for  one  hundred  years, 
or  thereabouts,  from  the  reformation  of  Elizabeth 
down  to  1662,  I  should  be  entirely  of  his  opinion;  for 
during  that  time  the  real  presence  was  the  most  pre- 
valent doctrine.  "The  King,"  as  Bishop  Andrews 
testifies  in  his  answer  to  Card.  Bellarmine's  Apology, 
"the  King  (James  1st)  acknowledges  Jesus  to  be 
truly  present,  and  truly  to  be  adored  in  the  Eucharist." 
I  also  with  St.  Ambrose  "adore  the  flesh  of  Christ 
in  the  mysteries."  (Bishop  Andrews,  ch.  8,  p.  1 94. ) 
Would  Mr.  Faber  hold  such  language  ?  "The  most 
sensible  Protestants,"  says  Bishop  Forbes,  (de  Eucha- 
ristia  I.  2,  c.  2,  §  9,)  "do  not  doubt  that  Christ  is  to  be 
adored  in  the  Eucharist.  For  in  the  reception  of  the 
Eucharist,  Christ  is  to  be  adored  with  the  true  worship 
of  latria.  'Tis  a  monstrous  error  of  the  rigid  Protes- 
tants, who  deny  that  Christ  is  to  be  adored  in  the  Eu- 
charist, except  only  with  an  inward  adoration  of  the 
mind,  but  not  with  any  outward  act  of  adoration;  as 
kneeling  or  other  like  posture  of  the  body."  Yet  is 
not  Mr.  Faber  obliged  by  the  existing  rubric,  to  teach 
this  monstrous  error? 

"I  suppose,"  says  the  learned  Mr.  Thorndike, 
(Epil.  I.  3,  c.  30,  p.  350.)  "the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  may  be  adored,  wheresoever  they  are;  and 
must  be  adored  by  a  good  Christian,  where  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church,  which  a  Christian  is  obliged  to 
communicate  with,  requires  it.  And  is  not  the  pre- 
sence thereof  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  a 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  67 

just  occasion  presently  to  express,  by  that  bodily  act 
of  adoration,  that  inward  honour  which  we  always 
carry  towards  our  Lord  Christ,  as  God?  Mr.  Fabcr 
would  exclaim,  take  care  how  you  hold  such  an 
opinion." 

I  might  here  also  quote  Ridley,  Hooker,  Casaubon, 
Montague,  Taylor,  and  Cosin.*  Such  was  at  that 
time  the  doctrine  of  the  most  celebrated  theologians  of 
the  Church  of  England:  they  adored  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  because  they  believed  him  there 
present. 

II.  With  the  year  1662  we  are  introduced  to  a 
new  epoch.  We  find  your  church  solemnly  proscrib- 
ing the  adoration  of  the  Eucharist.f  By  a  necessary 
consequence  of  this  sacrilegious  proscription,  the  Cal- 
vinistic  opinion  is  introduced  into  the  kingdom,  it 
*reaches  through  the  schools,  and  is  heard  in  the 
pulpits  of  the  established  Church.  And  in  fact,  if  the 
adoration  necessarily  supposes  the  presence;  explain 
it  as  you  will,  the  presence  obliges  also  the  adoration.^ 

*See  the  Discussion  Amicale,  T  1.  pp.  314,  315,  316,  and  Essay 
towards  a  proposal  for  Catholic  Communion,  chap.  5. 

fSee  the  concluding  notice  of  the  Communion  Service  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

JChristum  in  actione  coenae  vere  et  substantialiter  praesentcm, 
in  spiritu  et  veritate  adorandum,  nemo  negat  nisi  qui  cum  sacra- 
mentariis  vel  negat,  vel  dubitat  de  pnesentia  Christi  in  ccena. 
Kemnitius  T.  2,  Edit.  Francofurt.  p.  loO,  No.  4  Exam.  Cone.  Trid. 

In  1G70  the  ministers  of  Strasbourg  presented  in  a  body  to  the 
magistrates  a  request  by  ■which  they  demanded,  among  other 
articles,  that  all  who  approached  to  the  Lord's  Supper  should 
be  required  to  receive  it  kneeling;  they  instanced  the  example  of 
the  Church  in  Saxony,  and  gave  as  a  motive  the  faith  of  the  real 
presence,  adding  that  if,  according  to  the  expression  of  St.  Paul, 
"every  knee  should  bow  at  the  name  of  Jesus,"  much  more  should 
it  be  done  before  his  sacred  person. 

Zwinglius  could  not  comprehend  how  those  who  believe  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  present,  can  escape  the  guilt  of  sin  in  not  adoring  him 
(In  Exer.  Euch.  ad  Luther.)     Calvin  declares  loudly,  and  Beza  after 
him,  that  it  always  appeared  to  him  most  conclusive  to  say,  that  if 
Jesus  Christ  be  present  in  the  bread,  he  is  there  to  be  adored.     Ao« 


68  ANSWER  TO  THE 

From  the  moment  it  is  forbidden  to  adore,  it  is  equally 
unlawful  to  believe  Jesus  Christ  present  in  the  Eucha- 
rist. We  must  then  pass  with  Mr.  Faber  to  that 
kind  of  change,  which  he  presents  us  with  so  much 
self-complacency,  that  moral  change,  which  conse- 
crates the  bread  and  wine,  it  is  true,  for  a  religious 
ceremony,  but  leaves  them  untouched  in  their  sub- 
stance. Thus  the  Sacrament  will  exhibit  nothing  but 
empty  and  material  symbols,  and  we  must  only  speak 
of  it  as  an  inanimate  figure  without  any  reality;  for,  I 
beseech  you,  what  is  a  figurative  presence,  but  a  real 
absence?  / 

You  who  have  rejected  with  your  Church,  the  adora- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  in  his  Sacrament;  you,  who  with  her, 
condemn  it  as  a  shameful  idolatry,  how  can  you  come 
forth  and  tell  us,  that  you  are  agreed  with  us  on  the 
real  presence?  Ah!  sir,  if  you  were  convinced  of  this 
holy  presence,  you  would  be  seized  with  awe  and 
trembling  on  approaching  the  holy  table;  you  would 
annihilate  yourself  before  your  God,  veiled  under  the 
sacramental  species,  but  revealed  to  your  faith;  you 
would  receive  him  with  every  testimony  of  profound 
and  lively  adoration;  and  after  the  humble  centurion  of 
the  gospel,  you  would  say  with  your  forefathers,  with 
ours,  and  with  us,  "O  Lord,  I  am  not  worthy  that  thou 
should st  enter  under  my  roof;  but  say  only  the  word, 
and  my  soul  shall  be  healed."  This  was  the  language 
of  your  country,  for  eleven  hundred  years.  You  can 
no  longer  hold  and  pronounce  it  with  the  sentiment 
and  attitude  of  adoration!  Alas !  for  you  it  exists  no 
longer — I  do  not  say  upon  the  altar,  since  you  pro- 
scribe the  very  name  and  idea,  but  upon  the  table  of 

semper  sic  rationati  sumus:  si  Christus  est  in  pane,  esse  sub  pane  ador- 
andum.  (con.  Luther.)  But  neither  Calvin  and  his  disciples,  nor 
Mr.  Faber  and  the  modern  Church  of  England  men,  adore  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament:  therefore  they  do  not  believe  him  there  present, 
however  strong,  and  as  it  were,  Catholic,  may  be  the  expressions, 
which  they  often  affect  to  use. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  69 

the  Lord's  Supper, — you  have  nothing  but  bread  and 
wine.  The  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  you  say,  is  become 
a  stranger  to  earth  and  her  forsaken  inhabitants,  since 
it  has  been  in  heaven.  Adoration,  therefore,  in  you, 
would  be  real  idolatry.  Tims,  Mr.  Faber  is  mistaken 
when  he  assigns  transubstantiation  as  the  fundamental 
point  of  opposition  between  his  Church  and  ours.  He 
ought  to  have  assigned  the  doctrine  of  the  real  pre- 
sence, by  reducing  the  first  and  principal  question  be- 
tween Catholics  and  modern  members  of  the  Church 
of  England,  to  the  following  terms:  Is  the  body  of  Christ 
really  present  in  the  Eucharist,  or  is  it  not?  This 
question,  moreover,  holds  the  first  rank,  fiom  its  very 
high  importance.  In  fact,  the  conviction  of  the  real 
presence,  gives  to  the  faith  of  the  true  Catholic,  an 
impulse  perfectly  sublime;  and  then  it  calls  him  bark 
to  the  acknowledgment  of  his  own  lowliness,  of  his 
profound  unworthiness,  and  concentrates  all  his  pow- 
ers in  silent  adoration.  To  him,  it  is  a  source  of  the 
most  delightful  emotions,  and  at  the  same  time  a  prin- 
ciple of  spiritual  strength,  of  love,  joy,  consolation  and 
hope:  in  fine,  it  transports  him  above  all  terrestrial 
things;  and  in  some  measure,  deifies  him  upon  earth. 
Tell,  me,  candidly,  sir,  has  the  cold  and  lifeless  opi- 
nion of  the  figure  ever  produced,  or  can  it  ever  pro- 
duce any  thing  like  this? 

It  is  sufficiently  strange  that  a  man  persuaded  of  the 
real  absence  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  sa- 
crament, should  take  any  great  interest  in  the  transub- 
stantiation. Does  any  one  torment  himself  to  discover  the 
mode  of  a  thing's  existence,  which  he  does  not  believe 
to  exist  at  all?  To  what  purpose  would  a  man  dispute 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  prodigy  of  the  real  pre- 
sence is  effected,  if  all  the  while  he  disavowed  the 
belief  of  a  real  presence?  Even  if  the  Rector  should 
successfully  demonstrate  to  Catholics,  that  the  change 
of  substance  in  the  Eucharist  is  inadmissible,  he  would 
not  thereby  prove  that  the  reality  of  the  presence  is 
7 


70  ANSWER  TO  THE 

also  inadmissible.  He  would  still  have  to  combat  and 
overturn  the  Lutheran  opinion.  For  the  real  presence 
is  understood  in  two  ways;  either  by  the  change  of  the 
substance  of  bread,  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  body, 
as  the  Catholics  hold;  or  by  the  junction  or  union  of 
the  .two  substances,  as  the  Lutherans  contend.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  same  proofs  which  establish  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  demonstrate  that  of  the 
real  presence.  As  soon  as  the  substance  of  the  sa- 
cred body  has  taken  place  of  the  substance  of  bread, 
we  must  necessarily  believe  and  adore  Jesus  Christ, 
under  the  figure  and  form  of  bread,  under  the  sensible, 
qualities  of  a  substance  which  no  longer  exists.  You 
perceive,  sir,  that  the  principal  difference,  and  the 
greatest  opposition  between  our  Church  and  yours,  is 
in  the  real  presence.  Transubstantiation  is  but  second- 
ary. It  springs  from  the  doctrine  of  the  reality,  but  it 
follows,  and  never  precedes  it.  By  placing  it  in  the 
foremost  rank,  the  Rector  has  made  a  mistake  very 
surprising  in  a  theologian.  He  has  badly  stated  the  ques- 
tion, because  he  has  erroneously  conceived  concerning 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  He  appears  to  have  but  confused 
ideas  of  our  mysteries:  and  hence  he  has  not  perceived 
the  principal  opposition  of  the  two  churches,  where  it 
really  exists;  but  has  placed  it  where  it  is  not. 

III.  At  last,  I  arrive  at  two  consoling  pages,  full  of 
wise  and  judicious  reflections.*  I  have  read  them, 
and  read  them  again  with  great  satisfaction;  and  I  feel 
much  pleasure  in  thus  openly  making  the  acknowledg- 
ment. Why  are  such  pages  so  rarely  found  in  the 
work  to  which  I  am  replying?  If  it  be  truly  painful, 
when  we  are  labouring  to  reconcile  two  parties  at  va- 
riance, to  find  in  one,  hostile  dispositions  and  difficul- 
ties raised  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  it  is  delightful  to 
hear  both  express  the  same  sentiments  on  any  ques- 
tion. Here  Mr.  Faber  unites  with  us  in  censuring  the 
temerity  of  those  theologians,  who  inflated  with  vain 

*pp.  54,  54. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  71 

science,  and  imposed  upon  by  presumptuous  sugges- 
tions of  reason,  imagine  consequences  absurd  and  con- 
tradictory in  the  doctrines  of  the  real  presence  and 
transubstantiation  *  He  appears  to  address  such  vain 
and  restless  minds  in  these  words  of  Ditton — "They 
must  leave  off  this  quibbling  and  disputing,  and  take 
whatever  they  find  revealed  in  the  gospel;  remember- 
ing that  the  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  can  never 
possibly  oblige  them  to  believe  any  thing  that  is  really 
'  absurd  and  contradictory, ....  yet  they  may  be  oblig- 
ed to  believe  many  things  which  unconquered  preju- 
dice may  tell  them  are  absurd  and  unreasonable, 
and  which  they  may  think  to  be  so,  by  using  them- 
selves to  judge  of  the  ways  of  God  too  much  by  hu- 
man rules  and  measures."! 

With  Cosin,  Bishop  of  Durham,  Mr.  Faber  ac- 
knowledges the  possibility  of  the  presence  in  several 
places,  and  with  Forbes  that  of  a  change  of  substance. 
The  first  expresses  himself  as  follows :  "We  confess 
with  the  Holy  Fathers,  that  the  manner  is  ineffable 
and  unsearchable,  that  is,  not  to  be  enquired  and  search- 
ed into  by  reason,  but  to  be  believed  by  faith  alone. 
For  although  it  seems  incredible,  that  in  so  great  a  dis- 
tance of  place,  Christ's  flesh  should  come  to  us  to  be- 
come our  food;  yet  we  must  remember,  how  much  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  above  our  understanding, 
and  how  foolish  it  is  to  measure  his  immensity  by  our 
capacity.  But  what  our  understanding  comprehends 
not,  let  faith  conceive."! 

Now  you  shall  hear  the  second:  "Many  Protestants 
too  boldly  and  dangerously  deny  that  God  has  power 
to  transubstantiate  the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ. 

*  It  is  plain  that  he  alludes  to  several  writers  well  known  in 
Englaud,  among  others  to  Tillotson. 

f  Discourse  concerning  the  Resuirect.  of  Jesxcs  Christ. — London, 
1714,  2d  Edition,  Part  I.  sec.  4,  p.  15. 

X  Cosin  Hist.  Transub.  p.  36,  sect.  5,  n.  4. 


72  ANSWER  TO  THE 

'Tis  true  all  own  that  what  implies  a  contradiction 
cannot  be  done.  But  because,  in  particular,  nobody 
certainly  knows  what  is  the  essence  of  every  thing, 
and  consequently  what  implies  a  contradiction,  and 
what  not;  'tis,  without  question,  a  rashness  in  any  to 
put  limits  to  God's  power.  I  approve  the  opinion  of 
the  divines  of  Wittenberg,  who  assert  the  power  of 
God  to  be  so  great,  that  he  can  change  the  substance 
of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ."*  These  principles,  which  are  equally  those 
of  the  Rector,  and  Bishops  Forbes  and  Cosin,  are 
also  quite  conformable  to  those  of  Grotius,  Leibnitz, 
Molanus,  and  your  most  learned  countrymen,  who 
would  all  have  repeated  that  beautiful  invocation  of 
one  of  your  bishops:  aO  God  incarnate,  how  thou 
canst  give  us  thy  flesh  to  eat,  and  thy  blood  to  drink! 
How  thy  flesh  is  meat  indeed!  How  thou  who  art  in 
heaven,  mi  present  on  the  altar!  I  can  by  no  means  ex- 
plain. But  I  firmly  believe  it  all,  because  thouhast  said 
it;  and  I  firmly  rely  on  thy  love;  and  on  thy  omnipo- 
tence to  make  good  thy  word,  though  the  manner  of 
doing  it  I  cannot  comprehend. "f 

Since  the  time  of  this  religious  and  truly  philosophi- 
cal invocation,  theology  has  sustained  a  terrible  shock 
in  your  Church.  Bishop  Ken  and  Mr.  Faber  were 
brought  up  in  quite  opposite  doctrines  on  the  subject 
of  the  Eucharist;  the  former  in  the  principle  of  reality, 
the  latter  in  that  of  figure,  which  so  far  from  inspiring- 
its  cold  partisans  with  the  sublime  faith  of  the  Bishop, 
would  not  even  allow  the  Rector  to  admire  it.  Still 
let  us  congratulate  him  on  his  having  rejected  as  rash 
and  presumptuous  the  consequences,  which  many  of  his 
brethren  have  imputed  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  and 
censured  the  declamations  with  which  their  pulpits 
have  been  made  to  resound  in  that  positive  and  deci- 

*  Bp.  Forbes  De  Euch.  1.  1,  c.  2. 

•f  Z)r<  Ken,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells. — Eocposition,  1685. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  73 

sive  tone,  which  imposes  on  minds  imcapable  of  fathom- 
ing metaphysical  questions. 

Mr.  Faber,  as  I  feel  happy  again  to  acknowledge, 
beheld  the  difficulty  with  a  great  deal  of  just  discrimi- 
nation when  he  reduced  it  to  this  simple  question  of 
fact:  "Was  transubstantiation  revealed  by  Jesus 
Christ  or  not?"  But  he  soon  after  without  being  aware 
of  it,  substitutes  the  dogma  of  the  real  presence  for  that 
of  transubstantiation;  for  the  greater  part  of  his  argu- 
ments are  directed  against  the  reality.  I  am  induced 
to  remark  this,  not  so  much  to  reproach  him  with  it 
as  to  exhibit  the  want  of  accuracy  in  his  ideas.  For 
after  all  it  is  evident,  that  if  there  be  no  real  presence, 
there  can  be  no  transubstantiation  in  the  Eucharist. 
Let  us  now  examine  his  proofs  against  the  real  pre- 
sence. Hitherto  it  has  been  the  usual  course  of  di- 
vines to  examine  the  promise  made  by  Jesus  Christ, 
before  its  accomplishment.  Such  is  not  the  plan  of 
the  Rector:  he  returns  to  his  usual  method  of  inverting 
the  order  of  his  ideas.  He  enters  upon  the  discussion 
of  the  scripture  proofs  by  the  words  of  institution-, 
taking  care  however  to  discourse  later  of  the  promise 
which  our  Saviour  had  made  long  before  hand.  He 
must  allow  us  to  bring  back  things  to  their  natural 
order:  we  will  follow  him  afterwards  in  the  inverted 
march,  which  he  has  chosen  to  adopt. 


74  ANSWER  TO  THE 


CHAPTER  THE  SECOND. 


PROOFS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  OF  OUR  DOCTRINES  ON  THE 
HOLY  EUCHARIST. 


I.  I  think  you  will  not  require  me  to  repeat  to  you 
at  length  the  arguments  developed  in  my  first  volume, 
from  p.  250  to  279.  Be  so  kind  as  to  read  again  this 
portion  of  the  Discussion  Jhnicale.  I  content  myself 
with  presenting  you  a  summary  sketch  of  the  argu- 
ments which  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  had  promised  to 
give  us,  not  the  figure,  but  the  reality  of  his  sacred 
body. 

1 .  He  begins  by  reminding  the  Jews  of  the  great 
miracle  of  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  which  had 
taken  place  before  their  eyes  the  preceding  day,  and 
which  alone  ought  to  have  gained  him  their  entire 
confidence.  He  reproaches  them  with  their  back- 
wardness in  confiding  in  him,  and  establishes  his  claim 

their  confidence.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ex- 
ordium, and  this  manner  of  opening  himself  to  them 
imperfectly  and  by  degrees?  Whence  comes  it  that 
la-,  reminds  them  at  every  turn  of  the  necessity  of  faith 
due  to  his  character,  his  miracles,  his  heavenly  origin 
and  divinity?  What  is  the  object  of  these  recommen- 
dations, precautions  and  preliminaries?  What  end 
has  he  in  view,  and  what  does  he  intend  to  propose 
to  them?  Certainly  something  extraordinary,  and  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  receive.  Let  us  attend  to  his 
words:  "I  am  the  living  bread  ....  if  any  man  eat  of 
1his  bread  he  shall  live  for  ever:  and  the  bread  that  I 
will  give,  is  my  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world."*     A 

*St.  John  xl  v.  51,  52. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  75 

declaration  so  strange,  so  far  removed  from  human 
ideas,  could  not  relate  to  a  figurative  eating,  which  is 
simple  enough.  The  natural  sense  of  the  words  as 
the  Jews  have  just  heard  them,  astonishes  and  con- 
founds their  minds.  They  judge  it  impossible  for 
them  to  eat  the  flesh  of  Jesus.  The  carnal  manner, 
which  they  conceive  inseparable  from  this  manduca- 
tion,  evidently  supposes  the  reality;  and  no  less  evi- 
dently excludes  the  figure.  It  was  the  reality,  there- 
fore, which  they  understood. 

2.  So  far  from  undeceiving  them,  or  explaining  his 
words  in  the  figurative  sense,  our  Lord  subsequently 
repeats  no  less  than  six  times  his  first  declaration 
with  expressions  every  time  stronger.  The  energetic 
words  in  which  he  expressed  himself  even  shocked 
several  of  his  disciples;  they  declared  that  they  were 
too  hard  for  them  to  bear.  They  must  then  have 
conveyed  the  sense  of  the  reality,  incomprehensible 
to  the  human  mind;  and  not  the  figurative  sense, 
which  is  so  conformable  to  our  ideas. 

3.  Jesus  adds,  that  if  they  are  scandalized  at  what 
he  has  now  told  them,  they  will  be  much  more  so 
when  they  see  him  ascend  where  he  was  before:  that 
is,  that  the  accomplishment  of  his  promise  will  appear 
to  them  much  more  incredible,  when  he  shall  no  longer 
be  present  before  their  eyes.  But  a  figurative  man- 
ducation  becomes  still  more  easy  after  his  ascension, 
that  splendid  proof  of  his  divinity;  whereas  the  real 
manducation  is  far  more  incredible,  for  you  gentle- 
men especially  who  are  forever  repeating  to  us,  that 
his  body  is  as  far  from  our  altars  as  heaven  is  from 
earth.  Therefore  it  was  not  a  figurative,  but  a  real 
manducation  which  our  Saviour  had  announced. 

4.  Nevertheless,  in  order  to  remove  from  their 
imagination  the  crudity  of  a  carnal  manducation,  Jesus 
adds,  that  his  words  are  not  to  be  estimated  according 
to  human  reason,  but  according  to  the  enlightening 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    For  "it  is  the  spirit  that 


76  ANSWER  TO  THE 

quickenetb:  the  flesh"  (or  human  intelligence)  "profit- 
eth  nothing."*  But  no,  exclaims  Mr.  Faber:  "our 
Lord  teaches  us,  that  his  language  is  to  be  interpreted 
figuratively,  not  literally."  And  I  rejoin  that  it  is  not 
so;  and  cannot  be  so.  For  if  by  this  sentence,  our 
Lord  had  given  them  to  understand  •  that  his  discourse 
was  to  be  interpreted  in  a  figurative  sense,  those  Jews 
who  had  revolted  at  the  gross  idea  of  a  real  manduca- 
tion,  and  those  of  his  disciples  who  had  found  his 
words  a  hard  saying  beyond  bearing,  would  immedi- 
ately have  been  pacified;  they  would  have  been  re- 
conciled to  the  discourse  of  their  master,  and  more 

*  Spiritus  est  qui  vivificat,  caro  nonprodest  quidquam:  quod  indicat 
ista  Spiritus  Sancti  auxilio  intelligi  oportere.  Carnem  enim,  hoc 
est  rationem  humanan  in  hisce  divinis  rebus  nihil  prodesse,  hoc 
est,  caligare  et  ineptire. —  Centur.  Lutheran.  Cent  1,  c.  4.  Mr.  Fa- 
ber would  have  it  that  the  ancient  fathers  understood  this  64th 
verse,  as  he  does.  He  says  at  p.  87,  "that  it  may  be  more  dis- 
tinctly seen  how  widely  the  ancients  differed  from  the  Bishop  of 
Aire,  I  subjoin,  as  a  specimen,  the  gloss  of  Athanasius:"  and  then 
he  gives  a  translation  worse  than  incorrect,  as  will  be  readily  seen 
by  the  Latin  version  of  the  Learned  Benedictines,  as  follows: 
"De  seipso  dixit  Christus,  filius  hominis  et  Spiritus,  ut  ex  illo,  quce 
cwpus  suum  spectarent;  ex  Spiritu  vero,  spiritualem  suam  et  intelligibi- 
lem,  verissimamque  divinitatem  declararet,  (and  after  quoting  verses 
62,  63,  and  64)  nam  hie  etiam  utrumque  de  se  dixit,  carnem  et  spiri- 
tual: etspiritum  a  came  distinxit,  ut  non  solum  quod  apparet,  sed  etiam 
quod  invisibile  est  credentes  discerent  ea  quae  ipse  loqueretur  non  esse  car- 
nalia  sed  spiritualia.  Quot  enim  hominibus  corpus  satis  esset  ad  esum,  ut 
Mud  totius  mundi  jieret  alimentum?  Sed  ideo  meminet  ascensionis  Filii 
hominis  in  cczlum,  ut  a  corporali  cogitatione  ipsos  retraheret,  atque  hinc 
ediscerent  carnem,  de  qua,  locutus  fuerat,  cibum  e  supernis,  cczlestem  et 
spiritualem  alimoniam  ab  ipso  dari:  nam  quce  locutus  sum  vobis,  inquit, 
S]jiritus  et  vita  sunt:  quod  perinde  est  ac  si  diceret:  quod  ostenditur  et 
datur  pro  mundi  salute  caro  est,  quam  ego  gesto:  sed  hoec  vobis  cum 
ejus  sanguine  a  me  spiritualiler  esca  dabilur:  ita  ut  haec  spiritualiter 
vnicuique  tribuatur,  et  fiat  singulis  tutamen  in  resurrectionem  vitoi 
ceternce."     Ep.  4,  ad  Serap.     Episc.  Thmuitanum; 

Observe  these  word  s ;  but  this  flesh  with  its  blood  shall  be  given  to 
you  by  me  in  a  spiritual  manner;  this  is  precisely  our  doctrine. — 
There  is  a  wide  difference  between  saying  that  the  flesh  and  blood 
are  given  in  a  spiritual  manner,  and  saying  that  they  are  given  in 
figure  only.  A  body  in  figure  is  not  a  body;  but  a  spiritualized 
body  is  a  real  body  still.     It  is  such  as  the  bodies  of  the  elect  will 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  77 

attached  to  him  than  ever.  And  yet  it  was  immedi- 
ately after  this  last  sentence  that  they  withdrew, 
abandoned  their  master,  and  walked  no  more  with 
him !  Therefore  this  last  declaration  did  not  indicate 
the  figurative  sense. 

5.  Jesus  reproaches  the  disciples  with  not  believing 
his  word:  "there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not." 
But  if  he  had  explained  himself  in  the  figurative 
sense,  these  would  have  believed;  none  would  have 
merited  the  reproach  of  incredulity.  He  adds,  that 
no  one  can  believe  in  what  he  has  said,  unless  it  be 
given  him  by  the  Father.  But  to  believe  in  a  figura- 
tive manducation,  there  is  no  need  of  any  particular 
grace. 

6.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  on  the  promised  mandu- 
cation prevented  many  Jews  from  believing  in  him; 
and  induced  many  disciples  to  forsake  him.  Now 
our  doctrine  on  this  point  prevents  many  Christians 
from  adopting  our  creed,  and  causes  some  to  abandon 
it;  whereas  the  present  doctrine  of  your  Church  in 
general  attaches  its  members  to  it,  and  withholds 
those  who  would  otherwise  come  over  to  us.    Our 

be  in  heaven.  Semintur  corpus  animate,  surget  corpus  spirituals 
The  Rector  has  taken  the  passage  of  St.  Athanasius  in  a  wrong 
sense  from  beginning  to  end. 

In  the  Discussion  Amicale,  pp.  263,  264,  vol.  1,  I  said,  Christ 
when  he  announced  his  ascension,  insinuated  to  his  disciples,  and 
gave  them  sufficiently  to  comprehend,  that  in  the  manducation  of 
his  flesh,  the  senses  would  have  no  share,  as  they  had  imagined, 
and  that  his  presence  would  be  neither  palpable  nor  visible;  since 
according  to  this  natural  presence,  they  would  see  him  disappear 
and  ascend  into  heaven.  He  further  instructed  them  that  they 
ought  not  to  judge  of  his  body  as  of  other  human  bodies,  incapa- 
ble of  themselves  of  a  similar  ascension:  that  his  would  prove  to  be 
divinely  constituted;  his  flesh,  that  of  the  Son  of  God,  upon  which 
he  could  stamp  an  almighty  power,  and  which  he  could  easily 
change  and  give  in  a  supernatural  state."  I  thank  Mr.  Faberfor 
having  shewn  me  that  without  being  aware  of  this  passage  of  St. 
Athanasius,  I  had  been  so  fortunate  as  to  light  in  part  upon  the 
ideas  of  that  great  Prelate. 


78  ANSWER  TO  THE 

doctrine  therefore,  and  not  yours,  is  conformable  to 
that  of  Jesus  Christ. 

7.  Lastly;  and  I  beg  you  to  attend  well  to  this  final 
observation.  Several  disciples  chose  to  withdraw 
from  their  master,  even  after  the  declaration  he  had 
just  made,  rather  than  rely  on  his  word  for  the  man- 
ner of  accomplishing  what  he  promised: — but  the 
apostles  remain  attached  to  him;  and  building  on  his 
divinity,  depend  upon  his  power  for  the  execution  of 
his  promise.  But  the  former  would  not  have  abandon- 
ed such  a  master  through  unwillingness  to  believe  so 
simple  a  thing  as  a  manducation  explained  in  Mr. 
Faber's  way,  in  a  figurative  sense:  nor  would  the 
latter  have  needed  to  rely  for  their  belief,  upon  his 
diyinity  and  omnipotence.  Therefore  neither  party 
could  have  understood  this  manducation  in  the  figura- 
tive sense  of  the  Rector:  and  therefore  I  conclude  that 
the  true  sense  is  that  of  the  real  presence;  that  being 
the  only  sense  which  can  explain  the  opposite  conduct 
of  the  disciples  who  departed,  and  the  apostles  who 
remained. 

II.  I  now  ask  you,  sir,  if  the  long  and  memorable 
scene  at  Capharnaum  must  not  have  made  a  deep  and 
indelible  impression  upon  the  apostles?  In  how  great 
expectation  must  they  have  been  held  by  a  promise 
so  extraordinary  and  wonderful,  that  it  could  have 
been  conceived  and  proclaimed  by  none  but  God  him- 
self! It  must  have  required  no  less  than  the  miracles 
which  they  witnessed  every  day,  and  the  full  convic- 
tion of  the  divinity  of  their  master,  to  keep  them  in  the 
assurance  that  he  would  one  day  realize  his  promise, 
however  unintelligible  to  them  was  the  manner  in 
which  he  would  execute  it.  This  unheard-of  scene 
must  have  frequently  returned  to  their  minds;  but 
especially  at  the  memorable  time,  when,  after  the 
paschal  supper,  and  the  washing  of  their  feet,  being 
again  seated  at  table  by  his  order,  and  seeing  him 
take  bread  in  his  venerable  hands,  bless  it,  and  lift  up 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  79 

his  eyes  to  heaven  in  prayer — they  heard  him  solemn- 
ly pronounce  those  words,  take  and  cat,  this  is  my  body. 
These  words  dart  light  at  once  into  their  minds;  their 
expectation  is  accomplished,  their  hope  and  faith  are 
crowned:  and   even  we  ourselves,  sir,  though  at  so 
great  a  distance  from  this  grand  event,  assist  at  it  in 
imagination,  and  partake  of  the  banquet  oi0  our  Sa- 
viour.    We  can  imagine  that  we  have  just  heard  him, 
as  we  heard  him  before  in  the  synagogue  of  Caphar- 
naum.     Here  as  on  the  former  occasion,  we  enter  into 
the  sentiments  of  the  apostles:  with  them  we  perceive 
in  a  moment  the  manifest  connexion  between  the  pro- 
mise of  this  great  favour,  and  its  accomplishment;  be- 
tween the  food  promised,  and  the  food  bestowed;  the 
flesh  which  the  Lord  was  to  give  them  to  eat,  and  that 
which  he  actually  gives  them  to  eat.     We  compare 
the  narrative  of  St.  John    with   those  of  the  other 
evangelists:   these   words  of  the  former,  "the  bread 
which   I   will  give    is  my  flesh  for  the  life  of   the 
world,'"  with  the  words  of    St.  Luke:  "This  is  my 
body  which  is  given  for  you."     In  both,  the  subject 
is  the  same;  there,  as  here,  the  same  meaning,  the 
same  mystery,  the  same  truth.     We  further  remark 
that  this  great  miracle,  designated  beforehand  in  terms 
precise  and  expressive,  is  now  announced  in  the  most 
clear  and. simple  terms  which  language  can  furnish; 
and  we  say,  Jesus  Christ  pronounced  the  words  of  in- 
stitution in  the  same  sense  as  those  of  the  promise;  but 
we  have  just  seen  that  he  certainly  pronounced  the 
words  of  promise  in  the  sense  of  the   real   presence. 
Moreover,  the  apostles  must  have  given  to  the  words 
of  institution  the  same  sense  in  which  they  had  taken 
the  words  of  promised  but  that  sense  was  assuredly 
that  of  the  real  presence:  therefore  in  the  same  sense 
they  understood  the  words  of  institution. 

III.  If  notwithstanding,  it  will  afford  you  satisfaction 
for  me  to  resume  the  retrograde  movement  of  Mr. 
Faber,  and  go  back  from  the  institution  to  the  promise; 


80  ANSWER  TO  THE 

be  it  so,  I  am  quite  willing.  But  what  advantage  will 
the  Rector  gain  for  his  opinion  of  a  figurative  presence? 
This  we  shall  soon  see.  Whether  the  words  of 
promise  are  placed  first,  or  introduced  after  those  of 
institution,  I  see  no  difference,  except  in  the  subver- 
sion of  natural  order.  The  intimate  relation  between 
them  renders  them  inseparable.  They  admit  not  of 
being  insulted,  they  demand  comparison  and  juxtapo- 
sition: so  close  is  their  natural  union.  This  Mr. 
Faber  ought  to  admit;  for  he  himself  makes  use  of 
the  64th  verse  of  the  vi.  ch.  of  St.  John,  to  endeavour, 
if  possible,  to  explain  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body" 
in  a  figurative  sense.  He  cannot  therefore  dispute  my 
right  to  employ  the  same  chapter,  to  shew  that  the 
words  of  institution  import  the  real  presence. 

It  is  indeed  the  indispensable  duty  of  every  com- 
mentator to  bring  together  the  ideas,  which  must  at 
that  time  have  occupied  together  the  minds  of  the 
apostles.  Who  can  doubt  that  the  astonishing  scene 
at  Capharnaum  was  at  this  moment  present  to  their 
memory?  Certainly  we  have  sound  reason  to  believe 
that  so  extraordinary  a  discourse  as  the  one  held  by 
our  Saviour  on  that  occasion,  followed  up  and  incul- 
cated by  him  with  equal  force  and  perseverance,  ad- 
dressed first  to  the  Jews,  then  to  the  disciples,  and 
always  with  particular  energy,  must  have  left  a  deep 
impression  on  the  minds  of  the  apostles.  Judge  of 
this,  sir,  by  St.  John.  About  seventy  years  had  rolled 
by,  when  he  retraced  this  scene  with  so  animated  a 
pen,  so  much  circumstantial  precision  and  such  confi- 
dent recollection,  that  when  you  read  it,  you  seem  to 
see  it  passing  before  your  eyes.  How  much  more 
strongly  then  must  it  have  been  remembered  by  the 
apostles  at  the  end  of  a  few  months;  and  especially 
when  being  prepared  for  something  extraordinary,  and 
all  their  attention  fixed,  and  rivetted  upon  their  master, 
they  heard  these  words  from  his  mouth:  Take,  eat: 
this  is  my  body  which  shall  be  delivered  for  you!   We 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  hi 

may  well  suppose  them  exclaiming  at  that  moment; 
"Behold  now  the  accomplishment  of  what  he  had 
promised  us!  This  is  the  bread  of  which  he  spoke  to 
us;  the  bread,  which  came  down  from  heaven  to  give 
life  to  the  world:  this  is  the  reality  of  that  mysterious 
declaration;  Amen,  amen,  I  say  unto  you:  except  you  vat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  *Uan,  and  drink  his  blood,  you 
shall  not  have  life  in  you  ....  He  that  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  everlasting  life: ....  My 
flesh  is  meat  indeed;  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed  .  . . 
He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  arid  drinketh  my  blood,  abideth 
in  me,  and  I  in  him.  These  words  must  then  have 
loudly  echoed  in  the  ears  of  the  apostles:  and  I  beg 
you,  sir,  to  tell  me  honestly,  whether  such  language  as 
this,  and  affirmations  thus  repeated  can  be  reconciled 
with  a  metaphorical  sense;  or  if  they  do  not  neces- 
sarily exclude  a  figurative  acceptation?  Is  it  not  true 
that  the  words  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  rigorously  ex- 
press the  reality?  For  after  all,  flesh  in  figure  would 
be  at  most  but  figurative  nourishment;  it  never  could 
be  meat  indeed.  It  is  therefore  manifest,  that  the 
words  of  promise  import  the  reality;  and  since  the 
words  of  institution  cannot  be  susceptible  of  a  differ- 
ent signification,  we  must  acknowledge  in  them  also 
th  e  real  presence. 

Need  I  go  farther?  I  am  willing  certainly,  if  it  be. 
required,  to  separate  the  words,  this  is  my  body;  and 
to  consider  them  by  themselves.  I  maintain  that  they 
must  always  exhibit  to  us  the  real  presence.  Other- 
wise instead  of  interpreting  the  words  of  Jesus  Chi 
we  must  change  them;  we  must  make  him  say  the 
very  reverse  of  what  he  did  say.  For  if  he  only  left 
us  the  figure,  it  follows  that  what  he  declared  to  be 
his  body,  is  not  his  body;  inasmuch  as  the  sign  of  a 
tiling  is  not  the  thing  itself,  but  only  a  representation 
of  it.  Then  instead  of  these  positive  words,  this  is  my 
body,  we  must  make  him  say,  at  least  in  equivalent 
words,  this  is  not  my  body,  but  only  the  figure  of  it. 
8 


82  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Moreover,  would  he  not  himself  have  led  us  astray,  if 
the  words  we  read  in  his  Testament,  the  living  bread,  the 
bread,  which  came  down  from  heaven — the  jlesh,meat  in- 
tieed — the  body,  which  shall  be  delivered,  express  only  a 
wrong  idea;  while  the  words  sign  and  figure,  which 
we  do  not  find  at  all,  are  the  only  ones  which  will  open 
to  us  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures?* 

IV.  Mr.  Faher  with  a  good  grace,  surely,  represents 
me  as  an  enemy  to  metaphors,  ready  to  "make  short 
work  with  the  whole  family  of  them!"    No,  sir,  I  am  no 

*I  observed  at  page  293  of  my  first  volume,  "that  before  the 
institution  of  the  Eucharist,  bread  had  never  been  taken  in  the 
ordinary  usage  of  language,  as  a  sign  of  any  thing  whatever,"  Mr. 
Faber  replies,  that  in  the  Old  Testament  bread  is  sometimes  men- 
tioned as  a  sign  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  know  it  is;  and 
the  Rector  must  also  know  that  a  sign  exhibited  in  some  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  not  therefore  proved  to  have  been  employed 
in  common  use,  in  the  language  of  conversation  and  the  ordinary 
intercourse  of  life.  This  was  what  I  said,  and  all  that  it  waa 
necessary  to  say;  particularly  when  we  reflect  that  before  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  poor  Galileans  as  the  apostles  were, 
could  not  have  been  familiar  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Rector  observes  in  a  note,  p.  92,  that  according  to  the 
ancient  fathers,  bread  and  wine  in  the  Old  Testament  are  signs 
and  figures  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood.  And  he  thence  con- 
cludes that  they  must  be  so  in  the  New  Testament.  But  any  one 
would  have  inferred  that  they  could  not  be  so  in  the  New 
Testament.  For  the  figures  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  re- 
peated, but  fulfilled  by  our  blessed  Saviour.  If  bread  and  wine 
are  still  only  figures  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Rector  with  such 
ah  opinion,  ought  to  have  said,  that  in  the  Old  Testament  they 
were  figures  of  the  figure  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

1  say  the  same  of  the  loaves  of  proposition,  figurative  of  the 
bread  consecrated  upon  our  alters.  If  ours  is  no  more  than  it  was 
heretofore,  there  is  nothing  but  figure  in  both  Testaments,  and 
reality  in  neither.  I  conclude  then,  that  on  the  one  hand,  the 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  were  bread  is  given  as  a  figure 
of  Christ's  body,  do  not  prove  that  it  was  so  considered  in  the 
ordinary  use  of  language,  which  was  all  that  I  advanced:  but  on  the 
other  hand,  they'prove  that  the  bread,  which  prefigured  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  to  become  and  did  become 
his  real  body  in  the  New  Testament.  And  thus,  sir,  you  behold 
the  pretended  objections  of  the  Rector  become,  in  reality,  fresh 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  faith:  sagitta  parmdorum  factte 
sunt  plagce  eorum! 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  83 

enemy  to  them;  I  know  too  well  their  value  in  writing 
or  speaking-,  to  wish  to  banish  them.  But  because 
they  are  to  be  welcomed  when  they  appear  in  features, 
which  are  readily  acknowledged,  docs  it  follow  that 
wc  must  admit  them,  when  no  such  features  appear: 
I  can  see  metaphors  in  the  words,  J  am  a  door,  or  / 
am  the  vine.  The  explanations,  which  immediately 
follow  them  unfold  the  metaphors,  which  otherv, 
were  not  altogether  new.  But  the  words,  this  is  my 
body,  are  not  followed  by  any  explanation:  so  that  to 
find  their  interpretation  we  must  recur  to  the  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John;  and  we  have  seen  that  so  far 
from  giving  any  idea  of  a  figure,  that  chapter  visibly 
imports  the  reality. 

This  I  think  will  suffice  upon  the  arguments  for, 
and  against  the  real  presence,  drawn  .from  the  New 
Testament;  particularly  if  taken  in  conjunction  with 
those,  which  I  have  developed  in  the  sixth  and  seventh 
letters  of  the  Discussion  Jlmicale.  To  me  every 
difficulty  appears  cleared  up  on  this  subject3  the  ques- 
tion decided,  and  the  real  presence  solidly  established 
by  the  Sacred  Scripture- 


84  ANSWER  TO  THE 


CHAPTER  THE  THIRD 


PROOFS  OF  OUR  DOCTRINE  ON  THE  EUCHARIST  FROM 

TRADITION. 


I.  A  divine,  a  philosopher — every  man  accustomed 
to  order  in  his  ideas,  will  never  fail  to  arrange  them 
on  paper  with  the  same  attention  to  method  and  per- 
spicuity. Mr.  Faber  however  disdains  to  follow  ser- 
vilely in  the  train  of  the  learned  writers  who  have 
preceded  him.  He  departs  from  the  beaten  track, 
and  opens  for  himself  a  new  one,  just  as  his  ideas 
bear  him  along  from  one  subject  to  another.  After 
trying  in  his  fourth  chapter  to  explain  in  a  figurative 
sense  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  which  with  sublime 
simplicity  express  his  real  presence;  he  leaves  the 
Gospel  all  at  once;  passes  unceremoniously  to  the 
writings  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  which  he  abandons  in 
the  chapter  following  to  resume  the  Holy  Scripture, 
leaving  this  again  altogether  at  chapter  sixth,  where 
he  returns  to  the  examination  of  the  Fathers,  which  he 
had  begun  without  being  able  to  finisji.  I  cannot  ad- 
mire such  disorder;  I  shall  pursue  the  regular  course 
which  I  have  prescribed  to  myself.  I  have  said 
enough  to  establish  the  truth  of  our  doctrines  by  the 
Holy  Scripture;  I  now  enter  upon  tradition,  and  the 
proofs,  I  shall  deduce  from  it  will  fill  this  third  chap- 
ter. In  the  third  part  of  this  work,  I  purpose  to  col- 
lect the  mistakes,  contradictions,  studied  suppressions, 
infidelities  and  false  imputations,  which  are  scattered 
through  the  whole  of  the  Rector's  production.  I  shall 
pass  over  these  various  matters  as  cursorily  as  possi- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  35 

ble,  as  being  of  minor  importance,  and  for  the  most 
part  regarding  me  personally. 

I  must  own,  sir,  I  had  flattered  myself  that  my 
three  letters  on  the  general  and  particular  proofs 
from  tradition  would  have  found  some  favour  with 
Mr.  Faber.  '  But  he  professes  to  discover  nothing  in 
them  but  an  ingenious  and  subtile  argumentation,  and 
certain  captious  approximations,  capable  of  deceiving 
none  but  the  most  unenlightened.  They  have  not 
been  elsewhere  so  esteemed,  by  able  divines  of  vari- 
ous communions,  and  even  of  his  own.  It  shall  be 
my  object  to  compel  him  to  the  same  avowal  as  his 
brethren,  or  at  least  to  silence.  And  I  am  sure  of 
success,  if  I  can  present  these  proofs  to  his  view, 
with  the  force  and  clearness  which  are  so  peculiarly 
their  own.  I  begin  by  exhibiting  to  him  and  to  you 
an  anal}~sis  of  the  three  letters,  such  as  it  appeared  in 
a  French  paper  at  the  time  when  the  Discussion  Ami- 
cale  was  brought  over  from  London  to  Paris. 

II.  aThe  secrecy  universally  observed  during  the 
first  live  centuries  on  the  mysteries  of  the  altar,  is  the 
principal  point  on  which  the  labours  of  the  author  turn, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist;  and  may  be  called 
the  pivot  of  his  demonstration.  He  beheld  the  com- 
mand of  this  carried  so  far,  that  the  Fathers  did  not 
hesitate  to  declare  that  it  was  better  to  shed  their 
blood  than  to  publish  the  mysteries;  and  that  in  fact 
several  did  shed  their  blood,  rather  than  reveal  them. 
He  saw  that  this  discipline  must  of  necessity  be  traced 
up  to  the  apostles;  and  after  establishing  this  point  of 
history  beyond  a  doubt,  he  asks  himself  this  question: 
What  then  was  concealed  beneath  this  secrecy  rela- 
tive to  the  mysteries  of  the  altar?  It  must  have  been 
either  the  figure  of  the  Sacramentarian,  or  the  real 
presence  of  the  Catholic.  In  the  first  supposition, 
there  could  be  no  reason  for  keeping  silence;  because. 
with  a  figure  there  is  no  mystery;  and  the  law  of  se- 
crecy would  in  that  case  have  been  established  not 
8* 


86  ANSWER  TO  THE 

only  without  any  substantial  motive,  but  even  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  most  cogent  reasons  for  speaking  freely. 
The  assemblies  of  the  Christians  were  calumniated; 
they  were  charged  with  unheard-of  crimes;  the  faith- 
ful were  put  to  the  torture  to  force  from  them  the 
avowal  of  what  passed  clandestinely  among  them. — 
Why  not  then  throw  open  every  door?  Why  not  ex- 
pose to  the  light  the  innocence  of  their  religious  rites? 
And  why  did  they  not  invite  the  Pagans  to  come  and 
be  convinced  with  their  own  eyes,  that  they  took 
nothing  but  a  little  bread  and  wine,  as  a  sign  of  mutu- 
al fellowship,  and  a  memorial  of  their  Saviour?  Rea- 
son, charity,  and  self-interest,  would  have  obliged 
them  to  do  this.  The  secrecy  then  which  they  per- 
sisted in  keeping  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  the 
belief  of  the  Sacramentarian. 

aIn  the  belief  of  the  Catholic,  on  the  contrary,  who 
does  not  see  the  propriety  and  even  necessity  of  this 
discipline?  The  exalted  dogmas  of  our  faith  are  so 
far  above  human  understanding,  that  at  the  first  men- 
tion of  them,  the  Pagans  would  have  derided  them  as 
foolish  and  extravagant,  and  uttered  against  them  a 
thousand  insults  and  blasphemies.  Their  prejudices 
would  have  been  strengthened  against  that  religion,  to 
which  nevertheless,  they  were  by  degrees  to  be  en- 
ticed. Thus  on  the  one  hand,  the  respect  due  to  the 
mysteries  of  our  Lord,  and  on  the  other,  the  regard, 
which  charity  would  suggest  for  the  weakness  of  the 
Pagans,  sufficed  to  command  in  the  Catholic  belief,  a 
careful  silence  on  such  doctrines,  and  not  to  make 
them  known  till  after  a  lengthened  course  of  instruc- 
tions preparatory  to  baptism.  After  this,  read  the 
Fathers;  read  the  motives  which  they  assign  for  the 
law  of  secrecy;  and  you  will  confess  that  they  are 
precisely  such  as  I  have  just  mentioned.  Conformity 
of  reasons  demonstrates  conformity  of  belief.  We 
earnestly  exhort  our  readers  to  follow  up  in  the  eighth 
letter  this  first  general  proof  assigned  by  the  author. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  87 

In  the  development  of  this  interesting  discussion,  they 
will  at  once  be  convinced  of  the  connexion  and  evi- 
dent agreement;between  the  discipline  of  the  secret, 
and  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  real  presence;  and  no 
less  evidently  will  they  see  its  incompatibility  with 
the  figure  of  the  Sacramentarians. 

For  the  rest,  what  to  certain  prejudiced  minds 
might  appear  in  the  eighth  letter  no  more  than  an  in- 
ference, drawn  with  more  dexterity  than  certainty, 
becomes,  in  the  letter  following,  a  positive  fact,  and 
thus  acquires  a  force  that  is  irresistible.  What  in- 
deed was  concealed  in  part  by  the  secrecy  of  the 
Christians?  That  which  was  practised  in  their  reli- 
gious assemblies,  and  performed  at  the  altar.  And 
what  was  this?  Interrogate  the  liturgies;  they  are 
ready  to  answer  you.  About  the  time  of  the  council 
of  Ephesus  they  are  for  the  first  time  produced  in 
open  light;  previous  to  that  time  they  had  been  con- 
fided to  the  memory  of  the  bishops  and  priests;  for 
the  danger  of  the  secrets'  being  betrayed  had  forbid- 
den their  being  committed  to  writing.  But  at  that 
period,  Christianity  having  taken  the  lead,  and  having 
nothing  more  to  fear  from  Paganism,  every  church 
committed  its  liturgy  to  writing.  And  what  is  the 
information  they  give  you?  All,  without  exception, 
present  to  us  the  altar,  the  oblation  of  sacrifice,  the 
real  presence  by  the  change  of  substance,  and  the 
adoration. 

Nestorians,  Eutychians,  Jacobites,  are  here  agreed 
both  among  themselves  and  with  Catholics,  all,  not- 
withstanding schism  and  heresy;  in  spite  of  distance 
and  separation,  in  spite  of  the  difference  of  rites, 
prayers  and  solemnities;  all  in  Italy,  Africa,  Spain, 
Gaul  and  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  in  Greece  and  its 
islands,  in  Asia  Minor,  the  Indies,  Egypt  and  Abyssi- 
nia; all  describe  to  us  the  same  mysteries,  the  same 
dogmas;  all  profess  the  same  faith,  and  proclaim  the 
same  doctrine.     An  agreement  so  wonderful,  an  uni- 


88  ANSWER  TO  THE 

formity  so  admirable  could  only  proceed  from  one  and 
the  same  cause;  and  that  cause  would  be  sought  for 
in  vain  elsewhere  but  in  the  teaching  of  the  apostles. 
Such  is  the  substance  of  the  second  general  proof 
drawn  out  before  us  in  the  ninth  letter. 

Its  connexion  with  the  preceding  proof  is  this.  The 
secrecy  of  the  Christians  concealed  the  mysteries  of 
the  altar.  The  written  liturgies  disclose  them;  they 
display  to  us  the  real  presence,  transubstantiation  and 
the  adoration.  Therefore  these  mysteries  were  really 
enveloped  in  the  secret.  The  facts  speak  for  them- 
selves, and  the  primitive  liturgies  demonstrate  by  their 
mutual  agreement,  the  correctness  of  our  views  and 
argumentation.  But  the  secret  is  traced  back  to  the 
apostles;  the  essential  part  of  the  liturgy  comes 
equally  from  them,  and  both  were  common  to  all  the 
churches  in  the  world.  Here,  then,  are  two  general 
and  certain  proofs  of  the  apostolicity  of  our  doctrine 
on  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

This  is  not  all:  the  particular  proofs  are  admirably 
connected  with  those  which  are  general.  For  in  fact, 
what  the  faithful  celebrated  at  the  altar,  what  they  so 
carefully  concealed  from  the  non-initiated,  was  made 
known  for  the  first  time  to  the  neophytes  just  after 
their  baptism,  and  before  they  approached  to  the  Holy 
Communion.  They  were  detained,  that  what  till  then 
had  been  withheld,  and  what  they  were  soon  to  re- 
ceive, might  be  explained  to  them.  And  what  was 
then  explained  ?  What  dogmas,  what  doctrine  did 
they  then  hear?  Was  it  the^wre  of  the  Sacramenta- 
rian,  or  the  reality  of  the  Catholic?  Let  us  open  the 
catecheses;  they  will  point  out  the  instructions,  which 
were  then  given.  All  these  so  plainly  exhibit  our 
mysteries,  that  it  would  be  impossible  at  the  present 
day  to  express  in  terms  more  clear,  precise,  and  ener- 
getic, the  oblation  of  sacrifice,  transubstantiation,  and 
the  real  presence,  with  the  adoration,  which  it  de- 
mands.    Thus  then  we  are  assured  a  second  time  by 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  89 

the  cateclieses*  that  it  was  this  sublime  belief,  which 
was  concealed  beneath  the  discipline  of  the  secret. 

"Whoever  searches  for  it,  and  wishes  to  see  it  in  the 
ancient  Fathers,  must  always  bear  in  mind  that  they 
spoke  or  wrote  uniformly  under  the  law  of  the  secret; 
that  in  discourses  pronounced  before  the  uninitiated,  in 
writings  destined  for  the  public,  always  in  fine  when 
there  was  danger  of  betraying  the  discipline,  they 
were  under  the  necessity  of  using  obscure  and  ambi- 
guous expressions:  that  consequently  whoever  is  de- 
sirous of  forming  clear  and  certain  ideas  of  what  they 
believed  and  taught  on  the  Eucharist,  should  not  depend 
on  writings  of  this  kind;  because  good  sense  would 
dictate  that  clearness  is  not  to  be  sought,  where  obscu- 
rity was  commanded.  This  observation  suffices  to  put 
to  silence  every  objection  drawn  from  various  passages 
of  the  Fathers.  But  when  they  addressed  the  faithful 
only,  or  wrote  for  them  alone,  then  freed  from  re- 
straint, they  could  speak  of  the  mysteries  without  dis- 
guise; they  were  obliged  by  their  ministry,  to  speak  so, 
whenever  they  had  to  instruct  the  newly  baptized. 
These  are  the  discourses  and  writings,  which  we  ought 
in  these  days  to  consult,  in  order  to  become  acquainted 
with  their  real  sentiments,  and  their  inward  belief  on 
the  mysteries;  and  in  these  we  find  openly,  and  at 
every  word,  our  genuine  doctrine  on  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist. " 

III.  Thus  all  is  explained  and  understood,  all  is 
connected  in  these  three  dissertations.  FrOm  the  triple 
alliance  of  the  secret,  the  liturgies  and  the  catecfieses, 
results  a  complete  harmony,  and  an  irrefragable  proof 
of  the  apostolicity  of  our  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist. 
The  Rector,  who  appears  to  have  felt  and  dreaded 
the  force  of  this  triple  alliance,  attempts  to  weaken, 
and,  if  possible,  to  break  it.  He  separates  the  three 
parts,  and  attacks  them  in  succession.  It  becomes 
then  my  business  to  strengthen  them  one  by  one,  and 


90  ANSWER  TO  THE 

draw  closer  the  cords,  which  unite  them :  funiculus 
triplex  difficile  rumpitur* 

IV.  He  begins  by  condemning,  as  I  did,  the  extra- 
vagant opinion  of  those,  who  date  the  origin  of  the 
secret  discipline  from  the  fourth  century.  How  in 
fact  could  it  be  imagined,  that  the  Church  would  un- 
dertake to  deprive,  in  one  day,  all  who  were  not  Chris- 
tians of  the  knowledge  of  mysteries  universally  diffused 
the  day  before?  How  are  we  to  suppose  that  such  an 
undertaking  could  be  carried  into  effect?  Mr.  Faber 
acknowledges  with  me  the  folly  of  such  a  supposition: 
but  soon  after,  by  some  unaccountable  caprice,  while 
he  owns  that  the  secret,  as  regarded  the  Pagans,  was 
to  be  traced  up  to  the  apostles,  he  confines  its  esta- 
blishment with  respect  to  the  catechumens,  to  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  What  fact,  what  de- 
cree, or  what  monument  does  he  produce  in  proof  ? 
None  at  all.  In  what  place,  by  what  order  was  the 
knowledge  previously  communicated  to  the  catechu- 
mens, withheld  from  them?  The  Rector  says  not  a 
word.  He  gives  us  in  the  outset  his  own  conjecture, 
without  supporting  it  by  a  single  testimonial.  He 
imagines  that  St.  Paul,  full  of  admiration  for  the  secret 
mysteries  of  the  Pagans,  had  some  idea  of  placing 
under  a  similar  safeguard,  those  of  Christianity;  and 
that  a  hundred  years  afterwards,  the  Church  pre- 
scribed such  a  law  of  secrecy  with  regard  to  the  cate- 
chumens. He  refers  to  certain  passages  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  without  quoting  them,  which  appear  to  him 
to  prepare  the  way  for  this  discipline.  I  have  verified 
these  passages;  and  there  is  not  one  among  them 
which  can  justify  his  conjecture. 

But  it  must  be  further  observed  that  the  catechu- 
mens before  baptism,  were  only  either  Jewish  or 
Pagan  unbelievers,  who  came  of  their  own  accord 
to  submit  to  probation,  and  demand  the  instructions 

*Eccle$iastes  iv.  Y.  1SJ. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  91 

which  they  were  required  to  go  through,  before  they 
could  be  judged  worthy  of  baptism.  If  there  had 
been  no  secret  with  regard  to  them,  before  this  period, 
it  must  follow,  that  in  the  primitive  days,  the  Church, 
forgetful  of  the  precept  received  from  her  divine  legis- 
lator, cast  the  precious  pearls  of  her  doctrine  before 
swine.  For  according  to  the  language  of  tradition, 
the  pearls  are  the  mysteries,  and  the  swine  designate 
the  unbelievers.  In  fine,  those  who  in  this  glorious 
century  became  Christians,  had  commenced  by  being 
catechumens;  and  the  number  of  these  latter  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles  to  the  middle  of  the  second  centu- 
ry is  incalculable.  Among  so  great  a  multitude,  it  is 
morally  impossible  that  several  attracted  at  first  by  cu- 
riosity, and  even  by  better  dispositions,  should  not 
have  been  disgusted,  and  abandoned  the  austere  and 
fatiguing  course  of  probation  and  instructions,  to  re- 
turn to  the  religion  of  their  Fathers.  They  would  then 
have  carried  away  with  them  into  the  world  the  know- 
ledge of  the  mysteries;  they  would  have  communica- 
ted it  to  their  relations  and  friends,  and  to  all  who 
cared  to  be  informed  of  it.  There  would  in  such  a 
case  have  been  no  longer  any  secret  for  the  catechu- 
mens, or  even  for  the  Pagans.  So  far,  sir,  are  we  led 
by  the  arbitrary  and  ill-digested  supposition  of  Mr. 
Faber.  Let  us  leave  it  then  for  what  it  is  worth;  and 
consider  it  as  never  proposed:  for  what  settles  the 
question  against  the  Rector  in  one  word,  is,  that  all  the 
ancient  liturgies  exclude  the  catechumens  before  the 
celebration  of  the  mysteries.  This  rule  is  general: 
therefore  apostolical. 

FIRST    GENERAL    PROOF— THE    DISCIPLINE    OF    THE 

SECRET. 

I.  I  now  pass  on  to  the  general  proof,  which  I  ex- 
tracted from  the  discipline  of  the  secret;  not  however 
that  I  ever  insisted  that  the  Eucharist  was  its  sole,  ex- 
clusive, or  even  principal  object.     The  Rector  makes 


92  ANSWER  TO  THE 

me  assert  this  in  his  book,  though  he  knows  that  I  ne- 
ver said  it  in  mine;  he  repeats  it  to  satiety,  as  if  to 
shew  me  up  to  his  readers  as  in  error,  and  enjoy  a  vic- 
tory as  easy  as  it  is  imaginary.  Let  him  exult;  I  offer  no 
interruption:  I  shall  not  disturb  his  triumph;  I  am  ambi- 
tious of  one  more  real  and  substantial;  I  will  establish 
it  upon  incontestable  monuments.  Without  producing 
them  all,  I  will  present  you  with  several;  and  if  I 
fatigue  you  with  their  number,  you  must  blame  the 
man  who  compels  me  to  it.  You  shall  see  the  disci- 
pline of  the  secret  in  vigour,  from  the  epoch  of  the 
council  of  Ephesus  in  431,  up  to  the  days  of  the 
apostles. 

II.  Century  5th.  I  begin  with  the  celebrated  presi- 
dent of  the  above  mentioned  council:  these  are  the  words 
of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  his  seventh  book  against 
Julian.  He  does  not  notice  the  objections  of  that  empe- 
ror against  baptism,  but  contents  himself  with  saying, 
that  "these  mysteries  are  so  profound,  and  so  exalted, 
that  they  are  intelligible  to  those  only,  who  have  faith; 
that  therefore  he  shall  not  undertake  to  speak  on  what  is 
most  admirable  in  them,  lest  by  discovering  the  myste- 
ries to  the  uninitiated,  he  should  offend  Jesus  Christ, 
who  forbids  us  to  give  what  is  holy  to  dogs,  and  to 
cast  pearls  before  swine."  Observe,  sir,  that  ac- 
cording to  this  learned  Patriarch,  the  precept  of  the 
secret  discipline  comes  from  Jesus  Christ  himself:  and 
pray  bear  in  mind  this  important  testimony,  which  will 
furnish  later  the  solution  of  a  difficulty,  which  the 
Rector  imagines  to  be  insoluble.  After  saying  some 
little  of  baptism,  he  adds:  "I  should  say  much  more, 
if  I  were  not  afraid  of  being  heard  by  the  uninitiated: 
because  men  generally  deride  what  they  do  not  under- 
stand; and  the  ignorant,  not  even  knowing  the  weak- 
ness of  their  minds,  despise  what  they  ought  most  to 
venerate." 

"It  is  requisite,"  says  St.  Isidore,  of  Pelusium,  to 
have  in  the  heart  zeal,  and  the  love  of  virtue,  in  order 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  9$ 

to  eat  worthily  the  true  and  divine  passover.  They 
fully  comprehend  my  meaning,  who  folio  wing  the  sane- 
tion  of  the  Legislator,  have  been  initiated  in  the  mys- 
teries."" It  was  therefore  by  order  of  the  divine  Le- 
gislator that  they  spoke  clearly  of  the  mysteries  on- 
ly to  the  initiated;  and  the  mysteries  of  the  Eucharist 
were  comprehended  in  the  number. 

Innocent  first  wrote  thus  to  the  Bishop  Decentius: 
"I  cannot  transcribe  the  words  (the  form  of  confirma- 
tion) for  fear  of  appearing  rather  to  betray,  than  reply 
to  your  consultation".  .  .  .and  farther  on; .  .  .  ."as  to 
those  things  which  it  is  not  lawful  to  write,  I  can 
tell  you  them  when  you  arrive." 

In  the  first  of  his  three  dialogues,  Theodoret  intro- 
duces Orthodoxus  speaking  thus:  "Answer  me,  if  you 
please,  in  mystical  and  obscure  words;  for  perhaps 
there  are  persons  present  who  are  not  initiated  in  the 
mysteries.  Eranistes — I  shall  understand  you,  and 
answer  you  with  the  same  precaution;"  and  farther  on, 
"You  have  clearly  proved  what  you  intended,  though 
under  mystical  terms."  In  the  second  dialogue,  Era- 
nistes asks:  "How  do  you  call  the  gift  which  is  offered 
before  the  invocation  of  the  priest?  We  must  not 
mention  it  openly,"  replies  Orthodoxus,  "because  we 
may  be  overheard  by  persons,  who  are  not  initiated. 
Therefore  speak  in  disguised  and  enigmatical  terms; 
a  food  made  of  such  a  seed."  The  same  Theodoret 
in  his  preface  to  Ezechiel  traces  up  the  secret  disci- 
pline to  the  precept  of  Jesus  Christ.  "The  divine 
mysteries  are  so  august,  that  we  are  bound  to  keep 
them  with  the  greatest  caution:  and  to  use  the  words 
of  our  Lord,  these  pearls  ought  never  to  be  cast  be- 
fore swine.  For  indeed  men  finish  with  despising 
what  they  have  obtained  without  difficulty." 

St.  Augustin  in  his  discourses  before  catechumens, 
or  in  such  writings  as  might  fall  into  their  hands,  never 
failed  to  conceal  from  them  the  mystery  of  the  Eucha- 
rist. His  ordinary  expession  was,  uthe  faithful  kno\» 
9 


94  ANSWER  TO  THE 

it."  In  his  fourth  sermon  on  Jacob  and  Esau,  speak- 
ing of  this  mystery,  he  does  not  venture  to  call  it  the 
sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  but 
only  "the  sacrament  known  to  the  faithful,  made  from 
corn  and  wine."  In  his  epistle  to  the  catechumen 
Honoratus,  he  says,  "We  render  thanksgiving  to  the 
Lord  our  God  in  the  great  Sacrament,  in  the  sacrafice 
of  the  new  law:  when  once  you  have  been  baptized, 
you  will  know  where,  when,  and  how  it  is  offered.''' 
Speaking  of  the  manna  in  the  12th  treatise  on  St.  John; 
"We  know  what  the  Jews  received;  and  the  catechu- 
mens do  not  know  what  the  Christians  receive."  And 
in  the  preceding  treatise:  "Ask  a  catechumen  if  he 
eats  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drinks  his  blood; 
he  does  not  know  what  you  mean; ....  the  catechu- 
mens do  not  know  what  the  Christians  receive .... 
the  manner  in  which  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  is  received, 
is  a  thing  concealed  from  them."  "What  is  there  hid- 
den from  the  public  in  the  Church?"  he  says  in  his  first 
discourse  on  the  103d  psalm.  "The  sacraments  of 
Baptism  and  the  Eucharist.  The  Pagans  see  our  good 
works,  but  not  the  sacraments.  But  it  is  precisely 
from  those  things,  which  are  concealed  from  their 
sight,  that  those  spring,  which  cause  their  admiration." 
And  in  the  10th  sermon  on  St  John,  "Those  who 
know  the  scriptures,  understand  perfectly  what  Met- 
chisedech  offered  to  Abraham;  we  must  not  here 
make  mention  of  it,  because  of  the  catechumens: 
nevertheless  the  faithful  are  acquainted  with  it." 

III.  Fourth  century. — St.  Chrysostom  takes  occa- 
sion from  baptism  to  express  himself  as  follows,  on  the 
secrecy  of  the  mysteries  in  general:  Homil.  40  on  1 
Corinth.  aI  wish  to  speak  openly,  but  I  dare  not,  on 
account  of  those  who  are  not  initiated.  These  persons 
render  explanation  more  difficult  for  us;  by  obliging  us 
either  to  speak  in  obscure  terms,  or  to  unveil  the  things 
which  are  secret:  yet  I  shall  endeavour  as  far  as  possi- 
ble to  explain  myself  in  disguised  terms."  "Take  care 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  95 

not  to  give  that  which  is  holy  to  dogs,  and  to  cast  pearl 
before  swine,"  says  he  in  his  first  book  on  compunction 
of  heart.  He  takes  occasion  from  this  divine  precept 
to  declaim  against  the  abuses  of  granting  baptism  to 
catechumens  not  properly  disposed,  and  admitting  to 
the  holy  table  impure  and  corrupt  Christians.  In  the 
letter  in  which  he  informs  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  Inno- 
cent the  First,  of  the  tumult  excited  against  him  in  his 
Church,  he  relates  that  the  seditious  persons,  among 
wlwm  were  many  of  the  uninitiated,  forced  a  passage 
to  the  place  where  the  sacred  things  were  deposited: 
that  they  saw  every  thing  there,  and  that  the  most  holy 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  was  spilt  upon  their  garments. 
Palladius  giving  an  account  of  the  same  sedition  in  his 
life  of  St.  Chrysostom,  says  only  that  the  symbols 
were  spilt.  You  see  here  the  difference  of  expression: 
the  Patriarch  uses  no  circumlocution  in  a  confidential 
letter  to  the  head  of  the  Church;  but  Palladius  speaks 
with  reserve,  and  in  disguised  terms  in  a  history  in- 
tended for  the  public.  For  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  will 
repeat  to  you  the  words  of  your  learned  Casaubon. 
"Is  there  any  one  so  much  a  stranger  to  the  reading 
of  the  Fathers,  as  to  be  ignorant  of  the  usual  form  of 
expression,  which  they  adopt  when  speaking  of  the 
sacraments,  the  initiated  know  what  I  mean?  It  occurs 
at  least  fifty  times  in  the  writings  of  Chrysostom  alone, 
and  as  often  in  those  of  Augustin." 

:I  am  ashamed,"  said  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  to  an 
aged  catechumen,  "to  see  that  after  having  grown  old 
in  probation,  you  still  suffer  yourself  to  be  sent  out 
with  the  catechumens,  like  a  little  weak  boy  who 
does  not  know  how  to  take  care  of  what  is  entrusted 
to  him;  join  yourself  to  the  mystic  people,  and  become 
at  length  acquainted  with  our  secret  dogmas." 

St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  says  that  the  greater  part 
of  our  mysteries  ought  not  to  be  exposed  to  strangers; 
and  further,  that  "we  ought  rather  to  shed  our  blood 
than  publish  them."     Orat.  42,  et  35. 


96  ANSWER  TO  THE 

"We  receive,"  said  St.  Basil,  "the  dogmas  trans- 
mitted to  us  by  writing-,  and  those  which  have  de- 
scended to  us  from  the  apostles,  beneath  the  veil  and 
mystery  of  oral  tradition — the  words  of  invocation  in 
the  consecration  of  the  bread,  and  of  the  Eucharistic 
chalice;  which  of  the  saints  have  left  us  them  in  wri- 
ting ?  The  apostles  and  fathers,  who  prescribed  from 
the  beginning  certain  rites  to  the  Church,  knew  how  to 
preserve  the  dignity  of  the  mysteries  by  the  secrecy 
and  silence  in  which  they  enveloped  them.  For  what 
is  open  to  the  ear  and  the  eye  can  no  longer  be  mys- 
terious. For  this  reason  several  things  have  been 
handed  down  to  us  without  writing,  lest  the  vulgar,  too 
familiar  with  our  dogmas,  should  pass  from  being  ac- 
customed to  them,  to  the  contempt  of  them.    A  dogma 

is  very  different  from  a  sermon Beautiful  and 

admirable  discipline!  For  how  could  it  be  proper  to 
write  or  circulate  among  the  public,  what  the  uniniti- 
ated are  forbidden  to  contemplate?"  (On  the  Holy 
Ghost,  c.  27.) 

Listen  to  the  synod  of  Alexandria,  speaking  of  the 
Eusebians,  enemies  of  St.  Athanasius,  in  340.  "They 
are  not  ashamed  to  celebrate  the  mysteries  before  the 
catechumens,  and  perhaps  even  before  the  Pagans, 
forgetting  that  it  is  written,  that  we  should  hide  the 
mystery  of  the  King;  and  in  contempt  of  the  precept 
of  our  Lord,  that  we  must  not  place  holy  things  before 
dogs,  nor  pearls  before  swine.  For  it  is  not  lawful  to 
shew  the  mysteries  opeyily  to  the  uninitiated;  lest  through 
ignorance  they  scoff  at  them,  and  the  catechumens  be 
scandalized  through  indiscreet  curiosity."* 

St.  Epiphanius  (Anchor.  No.  37)  wishing  to  prove 
that  the  allegories  of  Origen  were  to  be  rejected,  and 
that  we  must  believe  things  without  always  seeing  the 

*  These  motives  were  no  less  strong  in  the  first  century,  in  which 
the  Rector  gratuitously  conjectures  that  the  mysteries  were 
open  to  the  catechumens.  The  synod  was  accountable  to  all  the 
Bishops  for  the  catholicity  of  its  condemnation  of  the  Eusebians. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  07 

reason  for  them,  quotes  the  Eucharist  as  an  example. 
"We  see  that  our  Lord  took  a  thing  into  his  hands,  as 
we  read  in  the  gospel,  that  he  rose  from  table,  that  he 
resumed  the  things,  and  having  given  thanks,  he  said, 
this  is  this  of  mine.  Hoc  meam  est  /ioc."  This  singu- 
lar turn  of  expression  and  reservation  conveyed  no 
meaning  to  those  who  are  uninitiated.  But  ought  it  not 
to  speak  very  loudly  to  Mr.  Faber?  What  think  jou, 
Sir?  Does  it  favour  the  opinion  of  a  figurative  pre- 
sence? And  do  you  not  at  first  sight  penetrate  the 
meaning  of  the  enigma? 

St.  Jerome  replying  to  Evagrius,  who  had  consulted 
him  on  an  obscure  passage  of  the  apostle,  touching  the 
sacrafice  of  Melchisedech,  says:  "You  are  not  to 
suppose  that  St.  Paul  could  not  easily  have  explained 
himself;  but  the  time  was  not  come  for  such  explana- 
tion: he  sought  to  persuade  the  Jews,  and  not  the 
faithful,  to  whom  the  mystery  might  have  been  deliver- 
ed without  reserve." 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  expresses  himself  as  fol- 
lows, (Catech.  6,  No.  29) — "We  do  not  speak  clearly 
before  the  catechumens  on  the  mysteries,  but  are 
obliged  often  to  use  obscure  expressions,  in  order  that 
while  we  are  understood  by  the  faithful  who  are  in- 
structed, those  who  are  not  so  may  suffer  injury." 
And  in  Catech.  18,  No.  32,  33,  "at  the  approach  of 
the  holy  festival  of  Easter,  —  you  shall  be  instruct- 
ed, with  God's  grace,  in  all  that  it  is  proper  for  you 
to  know;  with  what  devotion,  and  in  what  order  you 

are  to  enter  the  laver  of  regeneration, with  what 

reverence  you  must  proceed  from  baptism  to  the  holy 
altar  of  God,  to  taste  the  spiritual  and  heavenly  mys- 
teries which  are  there  dispensed after  the  holy 

and  salutary  day  of  Easter, you  shall  hear,  if  it 

please  God,  other  catechetical  instructions and 

on  the  mysteries  of  the  New  Testament  which  are 
celebrated  upon  the  altar,  and  had  their  beginning  in 
this  city,  all  that  is  taught  of  them  by  the  Divine 
9* 


98  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Scriptures,  as  also  what  is  their  force  and  power;  in 
ike,  how  you  are  to  approach  to  them;  and  when, 
and  how  they  are  to  be  celebrated. "  Nothing  marks 
more  forcibly  the  importance  of  the  secret,  than  the 
notice  placed  by  St.  Cyril  at  the  end  of  the  preface  at 
the  head  of  his  catecheses;  the  last  five  of  which 
disclose  the  mysteries  of  Baptism,  Confirmation,  and 
the  Eucharist.  It  is  as  follows:  "Give  these  cate- 
cheses, made  for  their  instruction,  to  be  read  by  those 
who  approach  to  baptism,  and  by  the  faithful  who 
have  already  received  it.  But  as  for  the  catechumens, 
and  those  who  are  not  Christians,  take  care  not  to 
communicate  them  to  such.  Otherwise  take  notice, 
you  will  be  accountable  to  God.  If  you  transcribe  a 
copy  of  them,  do  it  I  conjure  you,  as  in  the  presence 
of  the  Lord.'1 

St.  Gaudentius,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  contemporary 
with  St.  Cyril,  speaking  to  the  neophytes  on  their 
return  from  baptism,  said  to  them;  "In  the  lesson 
which  you  have  just  heard  from  Exodus,  I  shall  choose 
such  parts  as  cannot  be  explained  in  presence  of 
catechumens,  but  which  it  is  necessary  to  disclose  to 
neophytes."  In  another  place  he  proclaims;  "that 
the  splendid  night  of  Easter  requires  him  to  confess 
less  to  the  order  of  the  text,  than  to  the  wants  of  the 
occasion;  so  that  the  neophytes  may  learn  the  esta- 
blished rule  for  eating  the  paschal  sacrafice,  and  the 
faithful  who  are  instructed  may  recognize  it."  (Trea- 
tise 5  on  Exodus.) 

St.  Ambrose,  in  his  book  on  the  mysteries,  c.  1 ,  n.  2, 
says — "The  time  admonishes  us  to  treat  of  the  myste- 
ries, and  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  sacraments.  If 
before  your  baptism  and  initiation  we  had  thought  of 
sneaking  to  you  on  these  subjects,  we  should  have 
appeared  rather  to  betray  than  explain  them." 

"It  is  not  given  to  all  to  contemplate  the  depth  of 
our  mysteries.  Our  Levites  exclude  from  them  at 
rirst,  that  they  may  not  be  seen  by  those  who  ought 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  99 

not  to  behold  them,  nor  received  by  those  who  cannot 
preserve  them."  In  his  book,  De  Olliciis,  "Every 
mystery  should  remain  concealed,  and  covered  by 
faithful  silence,  lest  it  should  be  rashly  divulged  -to 
profane  ears."  And  upon  this  verse  of  psalm  118,  / 
hare  hidden  thy  words  in  my  soul,  that  I  may  not  sin 
against  tlice:  "he  sins  against  God,  who  divulges  to  the 
unworthy,  the  mysteries  confided  to  him.  The  danger 
is  not  only  of  telling  falsehoods,  but  also  truths,  if 
persons  allow  themselves  to  give  hints  of  them  to  those, 
from  whom  they  ought  to  be  concealed."  And  he 
opposes  such  indiscretion  by  the  words  of  our  Saviour. 
"Beware  of  casting  pearls  before  unclean  animals.'" 

IV.  Third  century. — Zeno,  Bishop  of  Verona,  in  a 
discourse  on  continence,  exhorts  the  Christian  woman 
not  to  marry  an  infidel,  for  fear  she  might  betray  to 
him  the  law  of  secrecy,  ne  sis  proditrix  legis.  And  he 
adds,  "Know  you  not  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  unbe- 
liever is  public,  but  yours  secret?  That  any  one  may 
freely  approach  to  his,  while  even  for  Christians,  if 
they  are  not  consecrated,  it  would  be  a  sacrilege  to 
contemplate  yours?"  In  a  discourse  on  the  126th 
psalm,  we  read  these  words. — "Custom  has  given  the 
name  of  the  house  of  God,  or  temple,  to  the  place  of 
our  assemblies,  which  are  surrounded  with  walls,  in 
order  to  secure  the  secret  celebration  of  our  sacra- 
ments."' 

St.  Cyprian  thus  begins  his  book  against  the  pro- 
consul of  Africa:  "Till  now  I  had  despised  the  impie- 
ties and  sacrileges  which  thy  mouth  discharged  inces- 
santly against  the  only  true  God;"  he  adds,  that  if  he 
had  been  silent,  it  was  not  without  the  command  of  his 
Divine  Master,  "who  forbids  us  to  give  that  which  is 
holy  to  dogs,  and  to  cast  pearls  before  swine."  He 
contents  himself  with  establishing  the  unity  of  God, 
without  saying  a  word  on  the  Trinity,  or  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church. 


100  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Origen,  in  his  13th  homily  on  Exodus,  preparing  to 
treat  of  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist,  says:  "I  am 
afraid  and  doubt  much  if  I  shall  find  suitable  hearers, 
and  that  I  shall  be  demanded  an  account  of  the  pearls 
of  the  Lord;  where,  how,  and  before  whom  I  have 
produced  them."  And  in  a  homily  on  Leviticus,  "Do 
not  stop  at. flesh  and  blood,  (the  lambs  and  goats 
spoken  of  by  Moses)  but  learn  rather  to  discern  the 
blood  of  the  world;  hear  what  he  himself  says:  This 
is  my  blood  which  shall  be  shed  for  you.  Whoever  is 
instructed  in  the  mysteries  knows  the  flesh  and  the 
blood  of  the  Word  of  God.  Let  us  not  dwell  on  the 
subject,  which  is  known  to  the  initiated,  and  which 
the  uninitiated  ought  not  to  know." 

The  very  ancient  author  of  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions, book  3,  ch.  5,  admonishes,  "that  in  speaking  of 
mystic  things,  care  must  be  taken  not  to  be  indiscreet, 
and  to  express  one's  self  prudently,  bearing  in  mind  the 
wrords  of  our  Saviour,  cdo  not  cast  pearls  before 
swine,  lest  they  trample  them  under  foot.'  " 

St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,,  in  the  first  book  of  his 
Stromata,  says — "I  pass  over  intentionally  several 
things,  fearing  to  commit  to  writing  what  I  took  great 
care  not  to  say,  lest  those  who  read  these  waitings 
should  take  my  words  in  an  improper  sense,  and  we 
should  be  accused,  as  the  proverb  says,  of  putting  a 
sword  into  the  hands  of  a  child.  There  are  certain 
tilings  which  the  Scripture  will  showr  me,  though  they 
are  not  there  openly  expressed  ....  there  are  some 
which  it  will  only  touch  upon;  but  it  wrill  endeavour  to 
say  them  under  a  veil,  to  disclose  them  while  it  con- 
ceals them,  and  to  shew  them  while  it  is  one's  self." 

Tertullian  seeking  to  deter  his  wife  from  marrying 
an  infidel  if  she  should  survive  him,  says  to  her 
among  other  reasons:  uYou  would  thereby  fall  into 
this  fault,  that  the  Pagans  would  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  our  mysteries Will  not  your  husband 

know  what  you  taste  in  secret,  before  any  other  food; 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISNf.  101 

and  if  he  perceives  bread,  will  he  not  imagine  that  it 
Is  that  so  much  spoken  of?"  Therefore  secrecy  co- 
vered the   mysteries  of  the  Eucharist. 

In  the  liturgy  called  that  of  the  apostles,  and  later 
of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  the  priest  and  deacon  bow- 
ing down,  and  each  holding  a  part  of  the  sacred  host, 
make  together  an  admirable  confession,  which  begins 
thus:  "I  believe  O  Lord,  and  confess  that  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  'Son  of  the  living  God,  who  didst  come 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  of  whom  1  am  the  chief; 
let  me  partake  of  thy  mystical  supper.  I  will  not  re- 
veal the  mystery  to  thine  enemies."  Therefore  the 
Eucharistic  mysteries  were  covered  by  secrecy.* 

The  author  of  the  Recognitions,  which  are  very  an- 
cient, since  they  were  translated  by  Rufinus  in  the 
fourth  century,  proves  as  follows,  the  difficulty  of 
preaching  before  a  multitude:  "For  what  is,  cannot 
be  said  to  all  as  it  is,f  on  account  of  those  who  give  a 
captious  and  malignant  ear.  What  tlien  icill  he  do  icho 
imparts  the  word  to  a  erowd  of  people  unknown?  Will 
he  conceal  the  truth?  But  how  then  can  he  instruct 
those  who  are  deserving?  If  however  he  exhibits  the 
clear  truth  before  those  who  are  indifferent  about  sal- 
vation, he  is  wanting  to  him,  by  whom  he  is  sent,  and 
from  whom  he  has  received  orders  not  to  cast  the 
pearls  of  doctrine  before  swine  and  dogs,  who  would 
be  furious  against  it  by  arguments  and  sophisms, 
envelope  it  in  the  mire  of  their  sordid  and  carnal  under- 
standing, and  by  their  barking  and  disgusting  replies 
would  tear  and  fatigue  the  preachers  of  God." 

*This  liturgy  is  still  followed  by  all  the  Greeks,  who  are  in  the 
West,  at  Rome,  in  Calabria  and  Apulia,  by  the  Georgians,  the 
Bulgarians,  the  Russians,  and  Muscovites;  by  all  the  Christians, 
the  modern  Melchites  under  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  resident 
at  Cairo,  under  the  patriarchs  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Antioch,  resi- 
dent at  Damascus — Set  P.  It  Brun  Ceremonies  of  the  Mast,  T.  4, 
in  Svo. 

fBook  30. 


102  ANSWER  TO  THE 

V.  Second  and  first  centuries. — The  secrecy  of  the 
first  Christians  on  the  Eucharistic  dogmas  is  demon- 
strated from  the  unworthy  calumnies  spread  and  be- 
lieved in  the  pagan  world  against  their  assemblies;  by 
the  punishments  employed  to  extort  from  the  Chris- 
tians an  avowal  of  what  they  practised,  and  by  the 
origin  of  these  calumnies  and  cruelties  which  dates 
from  the  first  century. 

Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  exclaims  wh*en  repelling 
the  accusations  of  infanticide  and  impurities;  "Who  are 
those  who  have  made  known  to  the  world  these  pre- 
tended crimes?  are  they  those  who  are  accused?  But 
how  could  it  be  so,  since  it  is  the  common  law  of  all 
mysteries  to  keep  them  secret?  If  they  themselves  made 
no  discovery,  it  must  have  been  made  by  strangers. 
But  how  could  they  have  had  any  knowledge  of  them, 
since  the  profane  are  excluded  from  the  sight  of  the  most 
holy  mysteries,  and  those  are  carefully  selected  who 
are  permitted  to  be  spectators?"  The  Pagans  then 
were  ignorant  of  what  passed  in  "the  assemblies  of  the 
Christians;  and  this  ignorance  evidently  pre-supposes 
the  secrecy  preserved  by  the  faithful.  The  object  of 
this  secrecy  was  the  Eucharistic  bread;  the  mysteries 
of  the  altar.  For  these  alone  could  have  given  rise  to 
the  calumnies,  while  at  the  same  time  the  sight  of 
them  was  forbidden  to  the  profane,  and  permitted 
solely  to  chosen  spectators.  These  reports  indicate 
manifestly  the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Let  us  hear  the  Pagan  Cecilius,  in  the  curious  and 
interesting  dialogue  of  Minutius  Felix,  which  I  recom- 
mend you  to  read:  "Shall  we  allow  men  of  an  infamous 
and  desperate  faction  to  attack  the  Gods  with  impuni- 
ty; and  gathering  together  an  ignorant  rabble  and  cre- 
duluos  women,  instruct  them  for  a  profane  society,  not 
to  say  a  conspiracy,  which  is  not  done  by  any  holy 
ceremony,  but  by  sacrileges,  nocturnal  assemblies, 
solemn  fasts  and  horrible  meats:   people  who  love 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  103 

darkness  and  fly  from  the  light;  who  say  nothing  in 
public,  and  talk  incessantly  when  assembled  together 
— -this  evil  sect  increases  every  day;  wherefore  wc 
must  endeavour  to  extirpate  this  execrable  society. 
They  know  one  another  by  certain  secret  signs,  and 
love  one  another  almost  before  they  are  acquainted. 
Lust  forms  a  part  of  their  religion:  they  commonly  call 
themselves  brothers  and  sisters,  to  make  simple  forni- 
cation become  incest  by  this  sacred  name;  so  much  do 
these  wretched  people  indulge  in  crimes.  Certainly 
if  there  were  not  such  crimes  among  them,  there 
would  not  be  so  loud  a  cry  against  them.  The  cere- 
mony which  they  observe,  when  they  admit  any  one 
to  their  mysteries,  is  not  less  horrible  because  it  is 
public.  They  place  before  the  new  comer  an  infant 
covered  with  paste,  in  order  to  conceal  the  murder 
which  they  will  have  him  commit.  At  their  bidding 
he  gives  it  several  stabs  with  a  knife.  The  blood  runs 
on  all  sides;  they  eagerly  suck  it  up;  and  the  common 
crime  is  the  common  pledge  of  silence  and  secrecy. 
Their  banquets  are  also  known;  and  our  Cirtensis 
makes  mention  of  them  in  his  harrangue.  They  all 
assemble  on  a  solemn  day,  men,  women,  children, 
brothers  and  sisters  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes;  and 
after  having  well  eaten  and  drunk,  as  the  heat  of  the 
wine  and  the  meat  begins  to  provoke  them  to  lust, 
they  throw  something  to  a  dog  who  is  tied  to  a  chan- 
delier, and  throw  it  so  far  that  he  cannot  reach  it,  on 
purpose  that  in  springing  forward  he  may  overturn 
the  lights.  Thus  having  got  rid  of  the  sole  witness  of 
their  crimes,  they  are  guilty  of  promiscuous  inter- 
course; and  by  this  means  are  all  incestuous  in  will,  if 
not  in  effect,  since  the  sin  of  each  one  is  the  wish  of 
the  whole  company.  I  pass  over  many  things  design- 
edly; and  indeed  here  are  already  too  many.  And 
truly  the  darkness,  which  they  seek  for  their  myste- 
ries, are  sufficiently  evident  proof  of  all  we  say,  or  at 
least  the  greater  part  of  it.     For  why  conceal  all  that 


104  ANSWER  TO  THE 

they  adore?    We  are  not  afraid  to  publish  what  is 
proper:  crimes  only  demand  secrecy  and  silence." 

Mr.  Faber  could  have  no  motive  to  make  him 
afraid  of  communicating  openly  to  Cecilius  his  opin- 
ion of  a  figurative  manducation,  of  a  moral  change  in 
the  substance  of  the  bread,  of  the  real  absence  of 
Jesus  Christ.  The  Christian  Octavius  has  no  such 
replies  to  make.  He  does  not  disclose  what  is  believ- 
ed, nor  what  is  done:  he  contents  himself  with  repel- 
ling the  infamous  calumnies.  "I  would  now,"  he  re- 
plies, "address  myself  to  those  who  say,  or  who 
oelieve  that  the  murder  of  an  infant  is  the  ceremony 
of  introduction  to  our  mysteries.  Do  you  then  think 
it  possible  that  a  poor  infant,  a  little  body  so  tender  is 
destined  to  die  beneath  our  violence;  and  that  we  shed 
the  blood  of  a  being  newly  born,  as  yet  of  imperfect 
form,  and  scarcely  a  human  being?  Let  those  believe 
it,  who  could  be  cruel  enough  to  perpetrate  it.  You 
indeed  expose  your  children  to  savage  beasts,  and 
birds,  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  you  strangle  and  suf- 
focate them:  there  are  even  some  who  by  cruel  po- 
tions murder  them  in  their  wombs,  and  kill  them 
before  they  see  light.  This  you  have  learned  from 
your  Gods. .  .  .  Nor  are  those  far  removed  from 
such  a  crime,  who  feed  on  savage  beasts  just  come  out 
of  the  ampitheatre,  all  bloody  and  full  of  those  whom 
they  have  just  devoured.  As  for  us,  we  are  not  allow- 
ed to  see  murders,  nor  to  hear  them;  and  blood  so  fills 
us  with  horror,  that  we  do  not  even  eat  that  of 
animals.  As  to  the  incestuous  banquet,  it  is  a  calum- 
ny invented  by  the  devils  to  sully  the  glory  of  our 
chastity,  and  deter  men  from  our  religion  by  the 
horror  of  so  great  a  crime.  What  your  orator  Cir- 
tensis  has  said  is  rather  an  injurious  accusation  than  a 
testimony.  And  truly  you  are  far  more  guilty  of  in- 
cest than  we  ....  and  thus  you  accuse  us  of  false 
incestuous  actions,  while  you  have  little  remorse  in 
committing  real  ones.    But  the  Christians  do  not  place 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  105 

chastity  only  in  the  exterior,  they  place  it  in  the  mind, 
and  do  not  so  much  study  to  appear  chaste,  as  to  be 
60  in  reality:  ....  and  if  we  are  chaste  in  our  assem- 
blies, we  are  no  less  so  in  all  other  places.  Many 
preserve  the  holiness  of  celibacy  even  until  death, 
without  any  boasting:  and  so  far  are  we  from  incest, 
that  some  are  ashamed  even  of  lawful  pleasures." 

"If  our  accusers  are  asked,"  said  Athenagoras,  "if 
they  have  seen  what  they  assert,  there  will  none  be 
found  impudent  enough  to  say  that  they  have.  How 
can  they  accuse  those  of  killing  and  eating  human 
beings,  who,  it  is  well  known,  cannot  bear  the  sight  of 
a  man  put  to  death  even  justly?  Men  like  us,  who 
have  renounced  the  spectacles  of  gladiators  and  wild 
beasts,  believing  that  there  is  little  difference  between 
seeing  a  murder  and  committing  one?" 

"Those,"  said  St.  Justin,*  "who  accuse  us  of  these 
crimes,  commit  them  themselves,  and  attribute  them  to 
their  Gods.  For  our  part,  as  we  have  no  share  in 
them,  we  do  not  distress  ourselves,  having  God  for 
the  witness  of  our  actions,  and  thoughts.  .  .  .  We 
entreat  you  that  this  request  may  be  made  public  .... 
that  it  may  be  known  what  we  are,  and  we  may  be 
delivered  from  these  false  suspicions,  which  expose  us 
to  punishment.  It  is  not  known  that  we  condemn 
these  infamous  deeds  which  they  proclaim  against  us, 
and  that  for  this  very  reason  we  have  renounced  those 
Gods  who  have  committed  such  crimes,  and  require 
such.  If  you  command  it,  we  will  expose  our  maxims 
to  the  world,  that,  if  possible,  it  may  be  converted." 
Observe,  he  does  not  say,  we  will  expose  our  mysteries 
to  the  world. 

VI.  Punishments  employed  to  extort  from  the  Chri$~ 
tians  the  secret  of  what  passed  in  their  assemblies. 
Eusebius  has  preserved  for  us  the  admirable  letter 
which  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  wrote  to 

"Second  apology  addressed  to  If.  Aurelius  in  16f. 

10 


106  ANSWER  TO  THE 

those  of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  on  the  persecution,  which 
they  had  just  suffered  in  Gaul.  We  find  in  it  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  uThey  took  some  of  our  servants, 
who  were  Pagans,  and  being  filled  with  the  spirit  of 
the  devil,  and  apprehensive  of  the  torments,  which 
they  had  seen  the  faithful  suffer,  deposed  falsely, 
through  the  violence  of  the  soldiers,  that  we  made 
feasts  like  Thyestes,  that  we  indulged  in  the  pleasures 
of  (Edipus,  that  we  committed  abominations,  which  it 
is  not  lawful  to  think  or  speak  of;  and  of  which  we 
Cannot  believe  that  any  one  ever  would  have  been 
guilty.  When  these  black  calumnies  were  spread 
among  the  public,  every  one  rose  up  with  such  fury 
against  us,  that  our  neighbours,  who  had  previously 
treated  us  with  some  moderation;  became  the  most 
enraged.  .  .  .  The  number  and  cruelty  of  torments, 
which  the  holy  martyrs  suffered  are  beyond  all  that 
we  can  express.  .  .  .  This  happy  woman  (the  heroic 
servant  Blandina)  felt  new  strength  as  often  as  she 
renewed  her  profession  of  faith,  and  found  relief  and 
pleasure  in  repeating — 'I  am  a  Christian  and  no  evil  is 
committed  among  us.'  Sanctus  also  supported  the  tor-» 
meuts  with  a  constancy  more  than  human;  and  when  in 
the  midst  of  the  most  cruel  punishments,  the  impious 
wretches  interrogated  him  in  the  hope  of  extorting  from 
him  by  the  violence  of  pain  some  word  unworthy  of  him , 
instead  of  replying  to  their  questions  ....  he  answer- 
ed nothing  else,  but  CI  am  a  Christian'  ....  The 
devil,  who  thought  he  had  overcome  Bibliada,  be- 
cause she  had  renounced  the  faith  like  certain  others, 
was  desirous  of  crowning  her  condemnation  by  calum- 
ny; and  caused  her  to  be  tormented  afresh,  in  order 
that,  weakened  as  she  was  by  her  fall,  she  might 
depose  against  us.  But  this  violence  served  only  to 
rouse  her  from  her  profound  lethargy.  The  punish- 
ments which  the  executioners  exercised  upon  her,  mad© 
her  remember  the  fire  of  hell,  and  she  said  to  them — 
'-How  shovld  the  Christians  devour  infants,  when  they 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  107 

are  not  even  permitted  to  eat  the  blood  of  beastsV  She 
then  confessed  that  she  was  a  Christian,  and  was 
numbered  with  the  martyrs  ....  Those  who  had 
renounced  the  faith  were  shut  up  in  prisons,  as  well 
as  those  who  had  confessed  it:  so  far  from  deriving 
any  benefit  from  their  apostacy,  they  were  arrested  as 
criminals  and  murderers,  and  tormented  more  cruelly 
than  the  others.  .  .  .  They  were  moreover  despised 
by  the  Pagans  as  cowards  who  had  renounced  the 
glorious  character  of  Christians  to  become  their  own 
accusers  of  murder.  .  .  .  Attalus  having  been  placed 
upon  the  iron  chair  and  burnt,  said  to  the  people  in 
Latin,  pointing  to  the  intolerable  smoke  which  rose 
from  his  body,  'it  is  truly  eating  men  to  do  as  you  do: 
but  for  our  part,  we  do  not  eat  them,  nor  commit  any 
other  crime.' "* 

•Besides  this  letter  written  by  witnesses,  who  had  still  before 
their  eyes  the  bloody  but  glorious  tragedy,  I  had  quoted  a  sbort 
fragment  from  St.  Irenasus,  preserved  by  (Ecumenius,  an  author 
of  the  tenth  century.  Mr.  Faber  attaches  himself  exclusively  to 
this  fragment,  and  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself,  says  not  a 
word  on  the  original  letter  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne. 
I  here  subjoin  the  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  fragment,  that  by 
comparing  it  with  that  of  the  Rector;  a  judgment  may  be  formed 
of  his  rare  talent  for  translation,  and  his  extreme  exactness  even 
fn  the  smallest  tilings.  It  is  as  follows:  "Cum  Grseci  servos  horum 
Christianorum  in  divinis  mysteriis  edoctorum  apprehendissent, 
deinde  vim  inferrent,  ut  videlicet  arcanum  quidpiam  ab  his  de 
Christianis  discerent;  cum  hi  servi  non  haberent  quomodo  vim 
infercntibus  ad  delcctationemet  gratiam  loquercntur,  prseterquam 
quod  a  dominis  audierant  divinamparticipationem  esse  sanguinem 
et  corpus  Christi;  existimantes  ipsi  quod  vere  sanguis  etcaroesset, 
hoc  responderunt  inquirentibus.  llli  vero  id  sumentes  tanquam 
reipsa  hoc  perageretur  a  Christianis,  id  aliis  quoque  manifesta- 
bant  Graecis;  et  martyres  Sanctum  et  Blandinam  tormentis  id 
fateri  cogebant.  Quibus  libere  et  scite  Blandina  locuta  est, 
dicens:  quomodo  hoc  fcrrent,  qui  ob  divinum  studium  et  medita- 
tionem  ne  concessis  quidem  carnibus  vescuntur?" 

The  fragment  and  letter  both  speak  of  the  same  persecution; 
the  letter  names  in  detail  several  martyrs:  the  fragment  only 
Sanctus  and  Blandina.  The  information  in  both  comes  from 
servants;  the  inculpations  are  for  a  similar  crime;  here  it  is 
human  blood,  human  flesh;  and  there,  feasts  like  that  of  Thyestes. 


F 


108  ANSWER  TO  THR 

In  the  second  apology  which  St.  Justin  addressed 
in  166  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  I  read  as  follows:  "But 
kill  yourselves  then,  all  of  you,  you  will  say;  and  you 
will  thus  find  God,  without  troubling  us  with  your  per- 
sons any  longer."  St.  Justin  tells  them  in  reply,  that 
the  faith  which  the  Christians  have  in  Providence  does 
not  permit  them  so  to  do;  and  he  adds  that  to  justify 
the  calumnies  propagated  against  the  Christians,  they 
put  to  the  torture  slaves,  children,  and  women;  they 
made  them  suffer  horrible  torments  to  extort  from 
them  a  confession  of  the  incests  and  banquets  of  human 
flesh,  of  which  the  Christians  were  accused.  They 
who  accuse  us  of  these  crimes,  commit  them  them- 
selves, and  attribute  them  to  their  Gods.  For  our 
part,  as  we  have  no  share  in  such  horrid  crimes,  we 
do  not  give  way  to  uneasiness,  having  God  to  witness 
all  our  thoughts  and  actions." 

The  answers  breathe  the  same  sentiments,  and  the  like  horror. 
"How  should  they  do  what  you  say,"  says  Blandina,  "who  through 
piety  and  having  God  before  their  eyes,  abstain  even  from  lawful 
meats?'1  "How,"  exclaimed  Bibliada,  "how  should  the  Chris- 
tians devour  infants,  when  they  are  not  even  permitted  to  eat  the 
blood  of  beasts?  And  Attalus:  "for  our  part,  we  do  not  eat  men, 
nor  commit  any  other  crime." 

Now  let  us  come  to  the  translation:  Existimantes  ipsi  (not  the 
Greeks,  but  the  servants,)  quod  vere  sanguis  et  caro  esset,  says 
the  Latin  Version.  The  tormentors,  says  Mr.  Faber,  fancying  thut  it 
was  literal  blood  and  flesh,  (literal  blood,  literal  flesh,  literal  body 
occur  incessantly  in  his  book:  we  can  say  with  propriety  that  any 
word  is  taken  to  the  letter,  or  literally;  we  speak  of  a  literal  ex- 
plication; but  who  ever  heard  of  a  literal  foot,  a  literal  hand,  heart 
of  literal  blood  or  flesh?  I  know  of  no  language  which  admits  of 
such  an  expression.  But  let  us  pass  on  to  the  other  words,) 
quibus  libere  ac  scite  Blandina  locuta  est;  Blandina  readily  and 
boldly  answered— boldly  is  not  the. meaning  of  scite.  What  St. 
Irenseus  admires  in  the  answer  is  not  the  boldness,  but  the  pru- 
dence, the  wisdom  which  while  it  repels  the  accusation,  takes 
care  not  to  disclose  the  secret.  Ask  your  Rector  what  scite  means; 
press  him  to  give  you  its  real  sense:  he  will  not  be  able  to  give  it; 
for,  to  adopt  his  style,  if  the  Christians  at  that  time  eat  only  literal 
bread  and  drank  only  literal  wine,  Blandina  ought  to  have  so  de- 
clared without  disguise;  and  in  not  doing  so,  she  would  have  re-« 
plied,  non  scite,  sed  stolidc* 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  109 

Pliny  the  younger,  governor  of  Bithynia,  giving  an 
account  of  the  Christians  to  Trajan,  occasioned  by  the 
reports  which  had  gone  abroad  against  them,  says  that 
he  had  determined  to  take  proper  measures  for  ascer- 
taining the  truth.  "This  made  me  consider  it  the 
more  necessary  to  extort  the  truth  by  the  force  of 
torments  from  the  female  slaves,  who  were  said  to 
belong  to  the  ministry  of  their  worship:  but  I  dis- 
covered nothing  except  a  bad  superstition  carried  to 
excess." 

VII.  These  calumnies  and  cruelties  take  their  origin 
from  the  first  century.  Celsus,  who  writing  icith  grey 
hairs  in  the  first  years  of  Adrian,  must  have  been 
born  between  the  years  of  seventy  and  eighty  at  the 
latest;  begins  with  the  reproach  of  clandestine  practi- 
ces, which  he  often  repeats  against  the  assemblies  of 
the  Christians.  Origen  replies  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christians  was  better  known  than  that  of  the  philoso- 
phers. "It  is  true  nevertheless,"  he  adds,  "that  there 
are  certain  points  not  communicated  to  every  one:  but 
this  is  so  far  from  being  peculiar  to  the  Christians,  that 
it  was  observed  among  the  philosophers,  as  well  as 
ourselves.  . . .  Celsus  therefore  attempts  in  vain  to 
decry  the  secret  kept  by  the  Christians,  since  he  does 
not  even  know  in  what  it  consists.*  One  would  think 
that  Celsus  sought  to  imitate  the  Jews,  who  when  the 
gospel  began  to  be  preached,  disseminated  false  reports 
against  those  who  had  embraced  it:  that  the  Christians 
sacrificed  a  little  child,  and  eat  its  flesh  together;  that 
to  do  works  of  darkness,  they  extinguished  the  lights, 
and  then  abandoned  themselves  to  impurity  indiscrimi- 
nately."f 

"For  my  part,"  says  St.  Justin,  "when  I,  who  am  a 
disciple  of  Plato,  heard  the  Christians  denounced  in  so 
unworthy  a  manner,  and  saw  them  walking  with  such 

•On?.  Book  1,  No.  7— Edit.  Bened.  T.  1. 
tlbid,  Book  6,  No.  28. 


110  ANSWER  TO  THE 

intrepidity  to  death,  and  to  all  that  was  terrible;  no, 
said  I  to  myself,  it  is  impossible  that  such  men  should 
live  in  the  depravity  of  vice,  and  the  pursuit  of  infa- 
mous pleasures.  Is  there  in  fact  a  man  so  enslaved  to 
voluptuous  gratifications,  or  of  such  outrageous  intem- 
perance as  to  find  supreme  luxury  in  a  banquet  of 
human  flesh;  and  who  at  the  same  time  will  run  gaily 
to  punishments,  and  throw  himself  into  the  arms  of 
death,  to  deprive  himself  voluntarily  of  what  he 
loves?" 

From  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  Saturninus  and 
Basilides  sprung  from  Menander,  who  himself  sprung 
from  Simon;  uThe  devil,"  he  adds,  who  has  no 
pleasure  but  in  evil,  made  use  of  these  monsters  .... 
to  give  occasion  to  the  infidels  to  cry  down  our  reli- 
gion. .  .  .  Thence  came  those  black  calumnies  that 
the  Christians  committed  incests  with  their  mothers 
and  sisters,  and  eat  abominable  meats."* 

"We  are  traduced,"  exclaimed  Tertullian,t  as  the 
most  wicked  of  men;  bound  to  each  other  by  an 
oath  of  infanticide;  guilty  of  regaling  ourselves  upon 
the  flesh  of  the  infant  which  wre  have  just  slain; 
and  afterwards  abandoning  ourselves  to  incest,  after 
the  dogs  who  are  accomplices  in  our  debauchery  have 
procured  for  us,  by  overturning  the  lamps,  the  protec- 
tion of  darkness,  and  the  effrontery  of  crime.  .  .  . 
The  imputation  of  these  works  is  dated,  as  I  have 
said,  from  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Hatred  of  the  truth 
began  with  it;  it  was  detested  as  soon  as  produced  to 
the  world." 

Finally,  we  learn  from  Tacitus,  speaking  of  the 
burning  of  Rome,  that  Nero  accused  people  of  it  who 
were  odious  by  their  crimes,  and  called  Christians.  .  . 
"They  first  apprehended  those  who  confessed;  after- 
wards a  great  multitude  were  convicted  upon   their 

*Eus.  IRst.  Eccl.  Book  4,  chap.  7. 
]Jipol.  ch.  7. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  1 1  1 

information,  not  so  much  of  the  burning  of  Rome,  as 
of  hatred  of  the  human  race."*  He  afterwards  speaks 
of  them  as  criminals  deserving  of  death.  Could  we 
conceive  that  a  society  of  men  so  pure  and  perfect 
could  have  been  devoted  to  the  hatred  of  mankind,  if 
we  were  not  informed  by  Eusebius  and  Tertullian  of 
the  abominable  calumnies  which  the  emissaries  of  the 
Jews  had  spread  abroad  against  them  as  early  as  the 
reign  of  Tiberius? 

VIII.  If,  sir,  you  have  paid  attention  to  the  passages 
from  the  Fathers,  which  I  have  now  laid  before  you 
relative  to  the  affecting  and  admirable  discipline  of  the 
secret,  you  can  no  longer  entertain  a  doubt  on  either  of 
the  following  points — 1st.  That  the  origin  of  this  dis- 
cipline is  to  be  dated  as  early  as  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  and  that  it  was  in  vigour  in  all  ;the  Churches 
during  the  first  four  centuries — 2dly,  that  the  Euchar- 
istic  dogmas  were  concealed  beneath  the  secrecy  ob- 
served during  this  long  period. 

1.  In  fact,  either  we  must  attribute  the  discipline  of 
secrecy  to  apostolic  institution,  or  say  that  the  Church, 
after  having  delivered  the  mysteries  to  the  public  dur- 
ing a  century,  more  or  less,  decided  all  at  once  upon 
depriving  them  of  the  knowledge  of  these  mysteries. 
To  impute  to  her  such  a  decision,  would  be  to  charge 
her  with  a  conduct  most  absurd  and  extravagant;  or 
rather  to  accuse  ourselves  of  absurdity,  and  lie  open 
to  just  reproach.  The  secret  so  religiously  observed 
in  the  fourth  century,  demonstrates,  by  the  very  fact, 
that  it  must  necessarily  have  been  so  observed  up  to 
the  days  of  the  apostles.f  Positive  proof  of  this  is 
furnished  by  the  testimonies  which  have  just  passed  in 
review  before  us.  You  must  have  remarked  that  the 
greater  number  of  the  Fathers,  whose  words  I  have 

*  Annul y  Book  15. 

f  You  will  find  the  proof  of  this  fully  developed  in  the  1st  vol.  of 
the  Discussion  Amicale,  p.  350,  et  seq. 


112  ANSWER  TO  THE 

cited,  many  more  of  which  I  could  have  produced, 
trace  the  discipline  of  secrecy  up  to  the  precept  of  Je- 
6us  Christ:  "take  care  not  to  cast  pearls  before  swine." 
We  have  seen,  moreover,  that  the  atrocious  calumnies 
spread  abroad  against  the  Christians,  arose  from  the 
privacy  of  their  assemblies,  and  the  inviolable  secrecy 
as  to  what  was  done  in  them;  and  we  learned  at  the 
same  time  that  these  calumnies  began  even  in  the 
reign  of  Tiberius.  In  fine,  it  is  here  that  the  solid- 
ly true  axiom  of  St.  Augustin  becomes  applicable: 
"Whatever  the  universal  Church  holds,  and  has 
always  held,  ivithout  its  having  been  established  by  any 
council,  is  to  be  justly  considered  to  have  come  down 
from  apostolical  tradition"  We  know  of  no  council 
which  established  the  discipline  of  secrecy;  and  we 
are  sure  that  it  was  observed  in  all  the  churches  in 
Christendom.  Our  witnesses  are — for  Rome  and  the 
whole  of  Italy,  Julius  the  First  and  Innocent  the  First 
— for  the  Milanese,  Ambrose — for  Aquileia,  Rufinus — 
for  Dalmatia,  Jerom — for  Brescia,  Gaudentius — for 
Verona,  Zeno — for  Carthage,  Tertullian  and  Cyprian 
— for  Hippo  and  all  Africa,  the  great  Augustin — for 
Alexandria,  Clement  and  his  disciple  Origen,  and  the 
patriarchs  Athanasius  and  Cyril,  and  the  synod  of  that 
famous  metropolis  in  its  encyclical  letter  to  all  the 
bishops  of  the  world — for  Jerusalem  and  Palestine, 
the  celebrated  catechist  Cyril — for  Cyprus  and  the 
islands  of  the  Archipelago  Epiphanius — for  the  coun- 
try about  the  Euphrates,  Theodore t — for  Antioch,  the 
queen  of  oriental  cities,  Chrysostom — for  the  towns  of 
Nyssa  and  Nazianzum,  the  two  Gregories — for  Cap- 
padocia  and  Pontus,  Basil — for  Helenopolis,  Palladius 
and  Sozomen — for  Constantinople,  Isidore  of  Pelusium. 
In  a  word,  if  the  discipline  of  secrecy  had  been  dis- 
regarded in  one  single  church  of  consequence,  it  soon 
must  have  ceased  every  where  else.  Suppose  that  at 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  some  one  of  the  churches 
founded  by  the  apostles  had  not  conformed  to  this  dis- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  H3 

cipline:  what  would  have  been  the  result?  The  mys- 
teries would  have  been  divulged  from  one  to  another 
by  persons  travelling  from  that  diocese  in  the  neigh- 
bouring countries,  and  in  a  short  time  the  secret  would 
have  been  published  every  where.  Put  these  various 
considerations  together,  and  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  the  apostolicity  and  universality  of  the  discipline 
of  secrecy  are  of  the  number  of  facts  the  best  attested 
in  history. 

2.  It  is  no  less  certain  that  the  dogmas  of  the 
Eucharist  were  concealed  beneath  the  secret.  Mr. 
Faber  would  maintain  the  contrary.  He  must  forgive 
me  if  I  prefer  the  testimonies  of  contemporary  Fathers 
to  his  views  and  opinions.  You  have  read  them; 
almost  all  declare  it  in  terms  so  positive,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  be  mistaken.  They  even  go  so  far  as  to 
name  among  the  mysteries  concealed  from  the  profane, 
the  Eucharist,  the  Christian  Passover,  the  sacrifice  of 
bread  and  wine,  prefigured  by  that  of  Melchisedech. 
And  in  fact,  what  could  be  the  object  of  the  infamous 
calumnies  spread  against  our  brethren  from  the  birth 
of  Christianity,  but  the  Eucharistic  mysteries?  To 
what  could  they  allude  by  their  tales  of  infants  mur- 
dered, their  flesh  served  up  as  meat,  and  their  blood 
as  drink — of  banquets  of  Thyestes,  &c.  if  not  to  the 
dogma  of  the  real  presence,  to  the  manducation  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ?  And  is  it  not  clear  that  these 
abominable  imputations  were  grafted  on  the  commu- 
nion of  the  faithful,  and  ridiculed  in  the  most  revolting 
manner  by  the  Jews,  in  order  to  excite  the  hatred  and 
horror  of  mankind  against  the  rising  Church? 

IX.  And  now,  sir,  that  you  see  these  two  points 
solidly  established;  and  the  apostolicity  of  this  disci- 
pline followed  in  all  the  churches  during  the  first  four 
centuries;  and  the  Eucharistic  dogmas  concealed  be- 
neath the  secret;  address  yourself,  I  pray  you,  to  the 
Rector  of  Long  Newton.  Ask  the  teacher  of  a  moral 
change,  of  a  figurative  presence,  of  a  real  absence, 


114  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  champion  of  literal  bread  and  literal  wine,  and  the 
adversary  in  consequence  of  the  adoration  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist — ask  him  how  an  opinion  so 
simple  as  his  own,  so  conformable  to  our  natural  ideas, 
could  have  been  ranked  by  antiquity  among  the  mys- 
teries? how  the  Fathers  could  have  taught  the  faithful 
of  their  time  that  they  must  rather  shed  every  drop  of 
their  blood  than  divulge  it?  how  the  numerous  martyrs 
of  Lyons  could  suffer  themselves  to  be  tormented  and 
torn  in  pieces,  rather  than  loudly  declare  it?  and  how 
the  reply  of  the  magnanimous  Blandina  has  excited,  and 
will  excite  the  admiration  of  every  age? 

What,  sir!  are  we  to  imagine  that  while  the  most 
horrid  calumnies  were  disseminated  on  all  sides 
against  the  primitive  Christians;  while  they  were  ac- 
cused of  murdering  new-born  infants  in  their  secret 
assemblies,  of  feeding  upon  their  palpitating  flesh,  and 
intoxicating  themselves  with  their  blood — and  of 
abandoning  themselves  like  blind  furies  to  excesses 
unheard  of  upon  the  earth;  while  they  were  devoted 
as  a  race  accursed  to  the  execration  of  mankind,  and 
to  atrocious  tortures;  that  they  would  not  open  their 
mouths  to  declare  their  innocence?  At  least  for  the 
purpose  of  charitably  saving  the  magistrates  and  the 
multitude  from  the  horror  of  commanding  or  contem- 
plating so  many  barbarous  and  protracted  massacres? 
From  what  motive  could  they  have  forbidden  them- 
selves an  innocent  and  natural  defence?  Why  at  least 
did  they  not  say  to  their  fellow  citizens:  "Come  then 
to  our  assemblies;  see  what  passes  their  amongst  us; 
we  take  a  little  bread  and  wine  in  memory  of  our 
good  Master,  who  delivered  us  from  sin  and  opened 
for  us  the  way  to  virtue.  He  himself  commanded  us 
to  use  this  simple  and  affecting  ceremony:  come,  and 
you  will  learn  to  know  us  better3  and  understand  what 
we  really  are?" 

X.  Nay  more;  if  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  first 
Christians  had  corresponded  with  the  belief  of  Mr. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  .  H5 

Faber;  if  the  Eucharist  had  been  viewed  in  the  same 
light  by  them,  as  it  is  by  him;  not  only  would  it  never 
have  formed  a  part  of  the  discipline  of  secrecy,  but  it 
never  would  have  occasioned  the  malignity  of  their 
cruel  enemies,  who  so  far  from  believing  their  unwor- 
thy calumnies,  would  never  even  have  thought  of 
inventing  and  propagating  them.* 

I  assert,  sir,  with  full  and  ehtire  conviction,  that  in 
this  ancient  discipline  of  secrecy,  there  is  a  certain 
mute,  but  perpetual  and  decisive  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  real  presence.  It  is  in  vain  for  the  Rector  to  con- 
tend; he  will  always  find  himself  borne  down  by  its 
irresistible  force;  and  struggle  as  he  may,  he  will 
never  rise  from  his  overthrow.  I  say  the  same  of  your 
whole  Church;  let  her  assemble  all  her  champions; 
let  her  put  forth  through  them  every  resource  of  wit 
and  learning — and  undoubtedly  she  possesses  much  of 
both — she  can  never  account  for  the  establishment  of 
secrecy  with  regard  to  the  Eucharist.  It  will  ever 
be  to  her  a  problem,  whose  existence  will  be  as 
incontestable,  as  its  solution  will  remain  impossible. 
To  discover  it,  recourse  must  of  necessity  be  had  to 
Catholic  principles;  and  she  must  behold  with  us,  in 
the  primitive  Church,  the  belief  of  the  real  presence 
of  our  Saviour  in  his  Sacrament,  the  heavenly,  the 
ravishing  object  of  our  faith  and  adoration.  Then  it 
will  be  readily  conceived  that  by  divulging  the  mys- 
tery so  exalted  and  inaccessible  to  reason,  scandal 
would  have  been  given  to  the  pagans  and  catechu- 
mens; and  railleries  provoked,  which  would  infallibly 
have  been  poured  forth  by  men,  who  were  not  Chris- 
tians, since  you  hear  them  incessantly  even  now  from 
the  mouths  of  your  theologians  and  preachers.  Then 
we  can  conceive  that  by  speaking  openly  of  the  real 

•See  page  363,  vol.  1,  of  the  Discussion  Amxcah — the  fine  theo- 
ry of  the  two  Anglican  Bishops,  Pearce  and  Hoadley,  and  of  Pre- 
bendary Sturges,  on  the  manner  of  presenting  the  Eucharist. 


116  ANSWER  TO  THE 

presence,  and  of  the  change  of  substance,  they  would 
nave  shocked  the  imagination  of  the  Pagans,  and  kept 
those  at  a  distance  from  the  religion,  whom  it  was 
their  duty  to  attract  to  it.  Then  we  can  understand 
the  precept  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  prohibition  of 
the  primitive  Church,  "to  cast  pearls  before  swine." 
Then  also  we  can  well  conceive,  that  through  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  of  their  divine  Legislator,  and  the 
command  of  his  Church,  the  faithful  would  rather  shed 
their  blood  than  betray  the  secret.  Then  are  we  in 
admiration  at  the  faith  and  heroism  of  those  martyrs, 
who  without  revealing  the  secret,  were  contented 
modestly  to  reply  in  the  midst  of  torments,  "there  is 
no  evil  committed  among  us."  Then  in  fine  every 
thing  is  understood  and  explained  in  those  illustrious 
ages;  the  rule  of  the  Church — the  exact  conduct  of 
the  faithful — the  self-devotion  of  her  martyrs — and  the 
frightful  calumnies  and  atrocious  torments,  of  which 
they  were  the  glorious  victims. 

I  finish  with  one  final  conclusion.  The  discipline 
of  secrecy  in  the  first  four  centuries  is  evidently  in- 
compatible with  the  actual  doctrine  of  your  Church; 
but  perfectly  conformable  with  that  of  ours.  I  had 
reason  therefore  to  say,  that  it  was  a  general  proof 
that  in  the  first  four  centuries,  the  Christians  believed 
what  the  Catholics  have  believed,  still  believe,  and 
will  ever  believe,  the  reality  of  the  presence  of  our 
divine  Saviour  in  the  most  holy  and  most  adorable  Sa- 
crament of  the  Eucharist.* 

•  On  the  subject  of  the  atrocious  crimes  attributed  to  the  first 
Christians,  the  Rector  furnishes  us  with  a  striking  proof  of  the 
candour  of  his  soul,  and  the  rectitude  of  his  mind.  He  knows 
perfectly  well  that  when  we  approach  to  the  Holy  Table,  we  are 
persuaded,  as  the  persuasion  generally  was  among  you,  up  to  the 
reign  of  Charles  II.  that  we  receive,  under  the  sensible  appear- 
ance of  bread,  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  present  in  a  supernatural 
manner,  a  body  spiritualized,  invisible,  inaccessible  to  all  the  senses. 
Such  is  the  mystery  which  we  believe  on  the  word  of  our  God- 
Saviour.    Now  listen  to  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  Faber:  "the  pagans 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  117 

SECOND  GENERAL  PROOF  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE 
ON  THE  EUCHARIST,  TAKEN  FROM  THE  ANCIENT 
LITURGIES. 

1.  When  I  perceived  at  my  second  reading  of  The 
Difficulties  of  Romanism,  the  title  of  the  seventh  chap- 
ter, I  laid  down  the  book  upon  my  table,  and  asked 
myself  these  questions:  "What  will  the  Rector  say 
here?  What  part  will  he  take  with  regard  to  our  an- 
cient liturgies?"  They  all  speak  uniformly,  and  in 
expressions  the  most  energetic  of  our  doctrines.  All 
proclaim  with  one  voice  the  altar,  the  oblation,  the 
unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  new  covenant,  the  real  pre- 
sence of  the  victim,  the  change  of  substance,  and  in 
fine,  the  adoration.  We  see  by  them  that  all  the 
Christians  in  the  world,  at  the  moment  of  communion 

fancied  that  the  early  Christians  literally  devoured  human  flesh 
and  literally  drank  human  blood ....  Now  they  could  not  with 
truth  have  denied  the  existence  of  such  abomination,  if  they  had 
held  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence:  for  in  that  case,  they  must 
have  been  conscious,  that  according  to  their  full  knowledge  and 
belief,  they  were  in  the  constant  habit  of  literally  devouring  human 
flesh  and  of  literally  drinking  human  blood.  Yet  under  the  most 
severe  torments,  they  invariably  and  totally  denied  the  fact. 
Therefore  by  denying  the  fact,  they  of  necessity,  denied  also  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence."  Is  it  possible  thus  to  keep  those 
in  the  dark  whom  it  is  a  duty  to  enlighten?  Where  is  the  Catho- 
lic in  the  whole  world  who  can  recognise  his  sentiments  in  tnose 
attributed  to  him  by  Mr.  Faber?*  Which  among  us  would  not  feel 
horror-struck  at  the  idea  of  them?  His  language  answers  to  th« 
notion  of  the  men  of  Capharnaum;  and  one  might  imagine  him  to 
have  just  arrived  among  us  from  their  synagogue. 

In  quoting  Mr.  Faber's  words,  I  have  purposely  substituted  the 
real  presence  for  the  word  transubstantiation,  which  he  employs;  and 
my  object  was  to  shew  you  and  make  you  sensible  that  his  reason- 
ing bears  in  the  most  direct  manner,  and  in  the  first  instance, 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence.  He  generally  affects 
to  reason  only  against  the  change  of  substance;  because  having 
set  out  with  assuring  us  that  our  respective  churches  are  agreed 
as  to  the  real  presence,  he  is  afraid  of  appearing  to  contradict 
himself.  But  I  beseech  you  only  to  pay  attention,  and  you  will 
see  that  he  combats  the  real  presence  almost  wherever  be  names 
transubstantiation. 
11 


1  1 8  ANSWER  TO  THE 

heard  from  the  mouth  of  the  deacon  these  words,  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  they  replied,  it  is  true.  This 
Amen  repeated  by  innumerable  lips  during  a  succession 
of  generations  and  centuries,  is  an  admirable  confes- 
sion of  faith,  which  will  resound  from  the  primitive 
Church  even  to  the  end  of  the  world,  in  proof  of  the 
real  presence.* 

Would  the  Rector  in  those  days  have  been  daring 
enough  to  oppose  his  voice  to  that  powerful  and  uni- 
versal testimony;  and  instead  of  Amen,  replied,  "I  see 
nothing  but  a  figure?"  The  liturgies  agree  in  present- 
ing us  with  lively  invocations  to  beg  of  God  to  send 
his  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  gifts  offered,  in  order  that  the 
bread  may  become*the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  what 
is  in  the  chalice  may  become  his  blood,  by  his  changing 
them  through  the  virtue  of  his  Holy  Spiritf .  Would 
Mr.  Faber  have  raised  his  discordant  voice  to  explain 
these  invocations  in  his  favourite  language  of  a  moral 
change?  and  will  he  still  maintain  before  us  now,  that 
in  imploring  the  Divine  Omnipotence  to  descend  upon 
the  gifts,  it  was  merely  to  change  them  from  common 
and  domestic  use,  to  a  service  symbolical  and  religious? 
The  liturgies  represent  to  us  the  clergy  and  people  by 
turns  in  fear  and  trembling,  in  the  attitude  of  profound 
adoration,  when  they  partake  of  the  Eucharist;  and 
put  into  their  mouths  at  that  time  the  most  lively  con- 
fessions of  faith  in  a  presence,  which  commands  the 
sovereign  worship  of  the  latria.  What  then  would 
have  been  the  expression  of  the  Rector's  countenance 
in  the  midst  of  these  fervent  assemblies?  Would  he 
have  shared  the  ardent  devotion,  the  religious  awe  of 
those  humble  adorers  of  Jesus  Christ?  or  rather  will 

*  Habet  cnim  magnam  voccm  Christi  sanguis  in  terra,  cum  eo 
accepto,  ab  omnibus  gentibus  respondetur  Amen.  August,  contra 
Faustwn.     Lib.  12. 

fThe  liturgy,  called  that  of  the  apostles — transmutet  etperficiat — 
Lit.  Syri.  translated  by  Renaudot. — Transmutante  in  te.  Lit.  Nest. 
translated  by  Renaudot. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  119 

he  not  be  ready  to  involve  them  with  us  in  the  guilt  of 
idolatry?  Will  he  not  accuse  them  together  with  us 
of  rendering  sacrilegious  worship  to  material  things, 
and  to  speak  in  his  own  language,  to  a  morsel  of  literal 
bread? 

After  revolving  these  reflections  in  my  mind  for 
some  time,  I  resumed  the  book,  and  read  with  avidity 
the  chapter  on  the  liturgies.  What  reply  then  does 
the  Rector  make  to  their  decisive  authority?  None 
whatever,  sir — to  my  utter  astonishment,  none.  He 
would  have  done  better  therefore  if  he  had  not  men- 
tioned the  liturgies  in  the  title,  since  he  says  not  a 
word  of  them  in  the  chapter.  Doubtless  it  is  wise  to 
keep  silence  about  proofs,  which  we  are  not  prepared 
to  combat;  but  it  would  have  been  wiser,  more  candid, 
and  more  courageous  to  surrender  to  their  victorious 
power.  I  will  endeavour  again  to  confront  the  Rector 
with  the  liturgies.  When  he  looks  them  a  second 
time  full  in  the  face,  perhaps  he  will  receive  a  more 
favourable  impression.  I  even  augur  it  from  his  silence. 
For  if  he  could  have  pounced  upon  them  in  any  part, 
he  would  certainly  have  done  it,  with  the  laudable 
zeal  that  animates  him.  Being  unwilling  however  to 
interrupt  the  reflections,  which  I  am  compelled  to  sub- 
mit to  you,  I  shall  place  my  extracts  from  the  liturgies 
at  the  end  of  them.  I  regret  that  I  am  obliged  to  revert 
to  them,  and  to  swell  out  my  reply  to  his  book  by  a 
long  addition,  which  he  might  have  spared  me  the 
trouble  of  doing,  if  he  had  pleased. 

II.  It  must  have  been  proved  to  a  demonstration  to 
you,  sir,  that  the  discipline  of  secrecy  covered  with 
a  mysterious  and  impenetrable  shade  the  assemblies 
of  the  Christians,  the  dogmas  therein  professed,  the 
prayers  there  made  to  God,  and  the  rites  there  prac- 
tised. These  rites,  prayers  and  dogmas,  so  long  un- 
known to  the  profane,  the  liturgies  revealed  to  the 
world,  as  soon  as  they  were  committed  to  writing. 
We  have  the  good  fortune  to  possess  a  great  number 


120  ANSWER  TO  THE 

of  them,  and  from  almost  every  country  where  Chris- 
tianity reigned  in  the  fifth  century.  They  do  not  leave 
a  shadow  of  doubt  of  the  consequences,  which  we 
have  deduced  from  the  discipline  of  the  secret,  by  the 
aid  of  simple  reasoning:  they  confirm  their  justice  and 
truth,  and  establish  our  first  assertions.  They  intro- 
duce us  to  the  interior  of  the  oratories,  where  the  early 
faithful  assembled.  We  see  them  placed  there  in 
perfect  order;  the  men  on  one  side,  the  women  on  the 
other;  the  children  nearest  to  the  sanctuary.  There 
we  behold  the  catechumens,  here  the  penitent;  and 
the  bishop  advancing  to  the  altar  preceded  by  his 
clergy.  With  them  we  assist  at  the  divine  worship, 
the  same  in  every  country,  at  least  as  to  every  thing 
essential.  With  them  we  partake  in  the  prayers,  and 
lectures  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Shortly 
after  we  hear  the  officiating  deacon  raise  his  voice 
and  say,  "depart  in  peace,"  addressing  the  catechu- 
mens* 

Then  it  was  that  the  divine  office  began,  the  cele- 
bration of  the  holy  mysteries.  They  disposed  them- 
selves for  the  sacrifice  by  preparatory  prayers :  the 
bread  and  wine  were  removed  from  the  credence  table 
to  the  altar.  The  graces  and  blessings  of  God  were 
invoked  upon  the  assembly  of  the  faithful,  upon  the 
Catholic  Church,  the  sovereigns,  and  magistrates,  upon 
the  army,  the  bishops  and  clergy,  upon  every  class  of 
the  faithful,  enemies  and  persecutors,  the  Christians 
who  were  in  prison  or  condemned  to  the  mines,  for  the 
conversion  of  the  gentiles,  the  return  of  schismatics  and 
heretics,  for  the  salubrity  of  the  air,  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  fruits  of  the  earth.  They  commemorated 
the  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  martyrs  and  confes- 

*  Litur.  of  the  Apost.  Constit. — '•Catechumens,  retire;  let  no  one 
t  emain  here."  Lit.  of  Constantinop.  "Let  there  be  no  catechu- 
mens any  longer,  nor  any  of  those  who  are  not  initiated  in  the 
mysteries."  "Let  each  one  be  known,  and  the  doors  carefully 
kept."     Lit.  of  St.  James, 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  121 

sors;  and  prayed  for  all  who  had  departed  this  life  in  the 
faith.*  Then  came  the  preface,  the  beginning  and  end 
of  which  are  the  same  at  this  day.  It  was  the  intro- 
duction to  the  principal  action  of  the  sacrifice,  which 
we  call  now,  as  formerly,  the  canon;  in  which  they 
never  failed  to  repeat  the  words  of  the  institution  of 
the  Eucharist  in  the  same  terms  as  those  of  the  evan- 
gelists. To  these  were  added,  particularly  in  the 
East,  admirable  invocations  to  beg  of  God  to  send 
upon  the  gifts  his  Holy  Spirit,  the  witnesses  of  the 
sufferings  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  by  his  presence  and 
power  the  bread  and  wine  might  be  changed  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Lord's  Prayer 
and  the  Apostle's  Creed  were  commonly  recited  after 
the  canon.  The  fervour  excited  by  the  approach  of  the 
consecration  was  kept  alive  after  it:  it  even  increased 
and  became  profound  adoration,  when  the  deacons 
distributing  to  the  faithful  both  species,  said  to  each 
one,  u  This  is  the  body,  this  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 
The  receiver  answered  "Jlmen."  This  affecting  spec- 
tacle of  love  and  devotion,  worthy  of  the  regard  of 
heaven  and  the  admiration  of  earth,  concluded  with 
lively  acts  of  thanksgiving. 

III.  Such,  in  the  primitive  church,  was  the  order  of 
the  divine  service,  which  the  Christians  celebrated  with 
the  doors  shut,  and  which  they  kept  secret  every  where 
else  with  a  fidelity  which  nothing  could  overcome. 
We  have  seen  them  suffering  torments  and  death, 
rather  than  divulge  what  passed  in  their  pious  assembles. 

*  From  the  birth  of  the  Church  to  the  sixteenth  century  no 
liturgy  was  ever  known  without  a  commemoration  of  the  saints, 
and  prayers  for  the  dead.  "We  make  memory  of  the  patriarchs, 
prophets,  apostles  and  martyrs,  that  by  the  merit  of  their  prayers, 
God  may  favourably  receive  ours:  we  pray  afterwards  for  the 
holy  fathers  and  bishops,  and  in  fine  for  all  departed  in  our  com- 
munion, believing  that  their  souls  receive  great  relief  from  the 
prayers  which  we  offer  for  them  at  the  moment  when  the  holy 
and  awful  victim  lies  upon  our  altars." — S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
Cat.  J\Iyst.  5 — ^&b  uno  disce  omnes. 
11* 


122  ANSWER  TO  THE 

The  liturgy  was  the  faithful  representation  in  detail  of 
their  worship.  You  will  therefore  readily  imagine  that 
it  was  not  committed  to  writing.  The  secret  would 
have  been  exposed  to  too  many  risks,  if  each  Church 
had  written  its  own.  From  the  beginning  they  had 
adopted  the  only  means  of  avoiding  accidents,  and 
concealing  the  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  from  the 
profane.  It  had  been  determined  that  the  prayers  of 
the  liturgy  and  consecration  should  be  confided  to  the 
memory  of  the  priests  and  bishops,  as  also  the  creed 
to  the  memory  of  the  faithful*  This  salutary  precau- 
tion continued  as  long  as  the  apprehensions  which  had 
rendered  it  necessary.  But  at  length  Christianity 
having  gained  the  ascendancy,  there  was  no  longer 
any  hesitation  in  publishing  the  mysteries.  This  happy 
period  was  about  the  time  of  the  general  council  of 
Ephesus,  in  431.  It  is  even  fair  to  presume  that  this 
determination  was  taken  by  the  fathers  of  that  council; 
for  then  the  liturgies  began  to  be  written  every  where 
all  at  once.  The  Nestorians  and  Eutychians  soon 
imitated  the  example  of  the  Catholic  Church;  and  in  a 
short  time,  every  Church  in  the  East  had  its  liturgy 
written.f 

IV.  But  here,  sir,  you  will  be  inclined  to  ask,  how 
are  we  sure  that  liturgies  written  three  centuries  and 
a  half  after  the  apostles'  time,  came  originally  from 
them?   In  this  manner:  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted, 

*  "The  symbol  of  our  faith  and  hope  comes  to  us  from  the  apcs- 
tlea,  and  is  not  written.— St.  Jcrom.  Ep.  ad  Pam.  No  one  writes 
the  creed;  it  cannot  be  read;  repeat  it  to  yourselves  everyday, 
when  you  lie  down  and  when  you  rise.  Let  your  memory  be 
your  book." — Sit  vobis  codex  vestra  memoria. — &  Jlug.  ad  Caiech.T.  6, 
p.  548. 

f  We  or.ly  know  of  two  liturgies  written  previous  to  the  council 
of  Ephesus;  that  which  I  have  quoted  of  St.  Cyril,  and  that  of 
the  anonymous  author  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions;  and  both 
contained  a  strong  prohibition  to  communicate  them  to  the  unini- 
tiated, because  of  the  sacred  things  they  contain.  Hence  at  the 
time  when  they  were  written,  the  discipline  of  secrecy  was  still 
ia  vigour. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  123 

that  the  earliest  liturgy  was  drawn  up  by  the  apostles, 
conformably  with  the  instructions  of  their  Master,  and 
celebrated  by  them  in  those  daily  assemblies  which 
they  held  at  Jerusalem  before  they  separated.  Of 
this  indeed  we  have  positive  evidence.  St.  Irenaeus, 
a  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp,  assures  us  of  it  in  these 
words:  "Our  Lord  taught  the  new  oblation  of  his  New 
Testament:  the  Church  has  received  it  from  the  apOs- 
tles,  and  presents  it  to  God  in  every  part  of  the  wrorld.* 
This  declaration  establishes  the  fact  decisively:  and 
we  naturally  conceive  that  the  apostles  departing 
singly  from  Jerusalem  would  give  the  same  liturgy, 
\vhich  they  had  there  composed  together,  to  the 
churches  founded  by  them  in  the  course  of  their  preach- 
ing the  gospel. 

St.  Epiphanius,  though  born"  in  310,  two  hundred 
and  ten  years  after  St.  John,  is  nevertheless  a  valua- 
ble witness  in  this  matter,  because  he  united  with  the 
virtues  of  a  great  prelate,  the  science  of  a  consum- 
mate theologian.  Observe  what  he  says  after  repeat- 
ing the  names  of  the  twelve.  "They  were  all  elected 
apostles,  to  preach  the  holy  gospel  over  the  world, 
with  Paul,  Barnabas,  and  the  rest;  and  they  were  the 
institutors  of  the  mysteries,  with  James  the  brother  of 
our  Lord,  and  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem."t  We  dis- 
cover in  Pliny  some  confused  traces  of  the  liturgy, 
which  the  Christians  celebrated  under  his  govern- 
ment.;]; St.  Justin  represents  it  to  us  more  distinctly 
in  the  account  which  he  thought  it  a  duty  to  give  to 
the  Emperor  Antoninus,  of  what  the  Christians  did  in 
their  secret  assemblies.  The  description  which  he 
gives  corresponds  precisely  with  the  liturgies.||  I 
have  adduced  other  authorities  in  my  ninth  letter  and 
its  appendix  at  the  end  of  the  1st  vol.  of  the  Discus- 
sion Amicale;  I  beg  to  refer  you  to  it 

*Adi\  Hares.  Lib,  4,  cap.  32.  \  Letter  to  Trajan, 

f  Hares.  79,  No.  3.  y  1st  Apol. 


124  ANSWER  TO  THE 

V.  I  see  plainly  enough  you  will  reply,  that  the 
apostles  composed  a  liturgy  together;  I  conceive  too, 
that  they  would  communicate  it  to  the  churches,  which 
they  founded:  but  where  are  we  to  find  this  apostolic 
liturgy  in  these  days?  We  have  a  great  number 
which  differ  from  each  other  considerably.  If  we 
suppose  that  these  were  traced  upon  the  model  of  the 
primitive  liturgy  drawn  up  at  Jerusalem,  by  what 
mark  are  we  to  distinguish  what  comes  from  the  apos- 
tles, from  what  does  not?  I  have  laid  down  the  cer- 
tain and  indubitable  mark  of  distinction  in  my  ninth 
letter,  where  you  may  see  it  solidly  proved.  The 
finger  of  the  apostles  is  manifest  wherever  the  various 
liturgies  all  unanimously  agree.  This  apostolic  mark 
has  been  acknowledged  and  described  by  eminent 
men  in  your  Church:  and  persuaded  as  I  must  be,  that 
their  judgment  will  have  more  weight  with  you  than 
mine,  I  will  here  present  you  with  it.  "It  was  highly 
unreasonable  to  suppose,"  says  Dr.  Water-land,  "that 
those  several  churches,  very  distant  from  each  other 
in  place,  and  of  different  languages,  ....  should  all 
unite  in  the  same  errors,  and  deviate  uniformly  from 
their  rule  at  once.  But  that  they  should  all  agree  in 
the  same  common  faith,  might  easily  be  accounted  for, 
as  arising  from  the  same  common  cause,  which  could 
be  no  other  but  the  common  delivery  of  the  same  uni- 
form faith  and  f^^Mne  to  all  the  churches  by  the 
apostles  themselves.  Such  unanimity  could  never 
come  by  chance,  but  must  be  derived  from  one  com- 
mon source;  and  therefore  the  harmony  of  their  doc- 
trine was  in  itself  a  pregnant  argument  of  the  truth 
of  it."* 

Archbishop   Wake   says;    "As    for    the    liturgies 

-  ascribed  to  St.  Peter,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  James,  there 

is  not  I  suppose  any  learned  man,  who  believes  them 

written  by  those  holy  men,  and  set  forth  in  the  manner 

•  Importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  pp.  372,  373. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  125 

they  are  now  published.  They  were  indeed  the  an- 
cient liturgies  of  the  three,  if  not  of  the  lour  patriar- 
chal churches — viz.  the  Roman  (perhaps  that  of  An- 
tioch  too)  the  Alexandrian,  and  Jerusalem  Churches, 
first  founded,  or  at  least  governed  by  St.  Peter,  St. 
Mark,  and  St.  James.  However,  since  it  can  hardly 
be  doubted,  but  that  these  holy  apostles  and  evange- 
lists did  give  some  directions  for  the  administration  of 
the  blessed  Eucharist  in  those  churches,  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  presumed,  that  some  of  those  orders  are 
still  remaining  in  those  liturgies,  which  have  been 
brought  down  to  us  under  their  names;  and  that  those 
prayers  wherein  they  all  agree  (in  sense  at  least,  if 
not  in  words)  were  first  prescribed  in  the  same  or  like 
terms  by  those  apostles  and  evangelists;  nor  would  it 
be  difficult  to  make  a  further  proof  of  this  conjecture 
from  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers,  if  it  were 
needful  in  this  place  to  insist  upon  it."* 

"I  add  to  what  hath  been  already  observed,"  says 
Bishop  Bull,t  "the  consent  of  all  the  Christian  Church- 

MQi8e$V,rse  before  his  translation  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  p.  102. 

~\  Sermons  on  Common  Prayer.  Serm.  13,  vol.  1,  new  edit.  I  had 
remarked  that  if  Bishop  Bull  had  with  just  reason  concluded  from 
the  liturgies  thececessity  of  acknowledging  the  unbloody  sacrifice 
of  the  new  law,  a  man  so  well  informed  ought  equally  to  have  in- 
ferred the  necessity  of  helieving  the  real  presence  of  the  divine 
victim,  the  change  of  substance  and  adoration;  since  the  liturgies 
are  no  less  unanimous  on  these  dogmas  than  on  the  sacrifice.  I 
had  quoted  previously  the  following  truly  orthodox  words  of  the 
3ame  bishop:  "If  it  be  imagined  that  all  the  pastors  could  have 
fallen  into  error  and  deceived  all  the  faithful,  how  can  the  word 
of  Jesus  Christ  be  defended,  who  promised  his  apostles,  and  their 
successors  in  their  persons,  to  be  always  with  them?  A  promise 
which  would  not  be  true,  since  the  apostles  were  not  to  live  so 
long  a  time,  if  their  successors  were  not  here  comprehended  in 
the  persons  of  the  apostles  themselves."  I  had  added,  that  with 
such  accurate  reasoning,  he  ought  to  have  come  over  to  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  What  does  Mr.  Faber  say  in  reply  to  my  reflections? 
He  observes  that  Bishop  Bull,  notwithstanding  died  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Church  of  England.  This  I  well  knew,  and  deplored  his 
inconsistency.     Let  the  Rector  explain  it  as  he  pleases;  I  can 


126  ANSWER  TO  THE 

es  in  the  world,  however  distant  from  each  other,  in 
the  prayer  of  the  oblation  of  the  Christian  sacrifice  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  or  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; which  consent  is  indeed  wonderful.  All  the  an- 
cient liturgies  agree  in  this  form  of  prayer,  almost  in 
the  same  words,  but  fully  and  exactly  in  the  same 
sense,  order  and  method;  which  whosoever  attentively 
considers,  must  be  convinced,  that  this  order  of  prayer 
was  delivered  to  the  several  churches  in  the  very  first 
plantation  and  settlement  of  them." 

I  conclude  with  Grotius,  who  is  honoured  by  all 
parties  as  he  deserves:  "I  find,"  says  he  in  his  Votum 
pro  pace,  win  all  the  liturgies,  Greek,  Latin,  Arabic, 
Syriac,  and  others,  prayers  to  God,  that  he  would 
consecrate  by  his  Holy  Spirit  the  gifts  offered^  and 
make  them  the  body  and  blood  of  his  Son.  I  was 
right  therefore  in  "saying  that  a  custom  so  ancient  and 
universal  that  it  must  be  considered  to  have  come 
down  from  the  primitive  times,  ought  not  to  have  been 
changed." 

"In  the  matter  of  worship,"  say  the  ministers  of 
Neuchatel,  in  the  preface  prefixed  to  their  liturgy, 
dedicated  to  the  King  of  Prussia  in  1713,  "great  re- 
gard must  be  had  to  what  was  the  practice  of  the  first 
ages  of  the  Church;  and  it  must  be  acknowledged  that 
we  find  in  the  prayers  of  the  ancients  a  very  peculiar 
simplicity  and  unction.  Besides,  who  can  doubt  that 
what  was  done  in  those  times,  and  established  by  the 
successors  of  the  apostles,  was  most  conformable  to 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  deserving  of  respect  from 
all  Christians?  It  is  true  that  the  usages  of  churches 
varied   considerably  afterwards  ....  but  it  is  certain 

only  lament  over  it,  and  leave  the  judgment  to  Him  who  searches 
the  reins  and  the  consciences  of  men. 

For  the  rest,  I  find,  on  the  subject  of  the  liturgies,  men  of  your 
Church  equally  clever  and  more  consistent  than  Bishop  Bull. 
Whiston,  Stephens,  and  Grabe,  composed  liturgies  in  which  they 
included  the  unbloody  and  rational  sacrifice,  the  real  presence,  change 
of  substance  and  adoration — See  Discussion  Amicale,  yoI.  1,  p,  '426, 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  127 

that  the  foundation  and  essence  of  the  ancient  worship 
has  been  preserved  hi  almost  all  the  liturgies;  and  that 
if,  without  regard  to  what  is  peculiar  to  each  liturgy, 
and  what  was  added  in  proportion  as  ignorance,  error 
and  superstition  found  their  way  into  the  Church,  we 
retained  ichat  icas  of  ancient  and  general  use,  and  what 
all  liturgies  agree  in  within  a  very  little,  we  should 
have  the  true  form  of  worship  among  the  primitive 
Christians.  Such  also  would  be  one  of  the  best  means 
of  arriving  at  that  uniformity,  so  necessary  for  the 
peace  and  edification  of  the  Church."* 

VI.  If  then  it  should  happen  that  in  the  midst  of 
variations  unavoidable  in  the  lapse  of  so  many  cen- 
turies, so  many  events,  idioms  and  Churches  of  differ- 
ent kinds,  nevertheless  all  the. liturgies  agreed  in  the 
sense  of  those  prayers  which  precede,  accompany  and 
follow  the  consecration;  and  if  those  prayers  clearly 
expressed  the  real  presence,  transubstantiation,  adora- 
tion and  sacrifice,  we  must  conclude  that  such  uni- 
formity, while  it  designated  the  esence  of  the  liturgy, 
denoted  also  its  apostolic  origin.  For  it  were  impos- 
sible to  suppose  any  other  cause  of  such  uniformity. 
We  can  find  no  other  sufficiently  preponderating  and 
universal  to  unite  in  this  manner  all  the  Churches  in 
the  world  in  one  spirit,  one  perfect  adherence  to  these 
same  dogmas,  and  one  attention  alike  scrupulous  to 

*  It  i3  impossible  to  think  on  this  subject  more  sensibly  than 
Messrs.  Waterland,  Wake,  Bull,  and  those  ministers  of  Neucha- 
tel.  They  agree  in  theory,  as  your  doctors  do,  that  all  that  ought 
to  be  retained,  in  which  all  the  liturgies  agree!  You  say  this,  you 
teach  it,  and  still  you  do  not  practise  it !  All  the  liturgies  have 
exhibited  and  will  here  exhibit  to  you  the  altar,  the  unbloody  sa- 
crifice, the  real  presence  of  the  divine  victim,  the  change  of  sub- 
stance, the  adoration,  and  prayers  for  the  dead;  and  you  do  not 
retain  these  sublime  doctrines,  but  trample  them  under  foot !  You 
have  pronounced  your  own  condemnation.  And  your  contradic- 
tions do  not  open  your  eyes !  Nor  the  eyes  of  those  who  hear  you! 
What?  so  many  lights  to  distinguish  what  is  good,  and  so  much 
obstinacy  in  rejecting  it.!  Great  God  !  will  they  never  recover 
from  such  blindness? 


]2Q  ANSWER  TO  THE 

profess  them  in  the  same  circumstances.     There  is  no 
council  to  which  this  singular  unanimity  could  be  attach- 
ed; and  indeed  the  most  oecumenical  council  would  not 
have  sufficed;  because  the  heretics  would  never  have 
followed  its  decisions,  and  the  schismatical  commu- 
nions of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  being  as  inimical 
to  each  other,  as  to  the  mother  Church,  would  never 
have  agreed  together  to  adopt  the  forms  of  prayer  and 
professions  of  faith  drawn  up  by  the  council.     Noth- 
ing   then    but  the   institution   and  authority   of   the 
apostles,  held   by  all  equally  sacred,  can  adequately 
acount  for  such  uniformity,  if  it  really  exists  in  the 
Christian  liturgies  written  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  cen- 
turies.    Now  I  pledge  myself  to  convince  you  in  the 
most  palpable  manner,  that  all  the  liturgies  of  those 
times,  in  use  not  only  in  the  Catholic  Church,  but  even 
among  the  schismatics  and  heretics,  unanimously  agree 
in  the  prayers,  which  precede,  accompany  and  follow 
the  consecration;  and  that  they  express  in  the  clearest 
and  most  energetic  manner  the  belief  of  sacrifice,  of 
the  real  presence,  of  transubstantiation  and  adoration. 
The  fact  in  question  is  most  easy  to  demonstrate,  and 
established  by  authentic  quotations  extracted  from  all 
these  liturgies.     I  will  collect  them  for  you,  and  let 
them  pass  in  review  before  your  eyes. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  VARIOUS  LITURGIES. 

"We  offer  to  thee  who  art  King  and  God,  this 
bread  and  this  chalice,  according  to  the  order  of  our 
Saviour;  returning  thee  thanks  through  Him,  for  hav- 
ing vouchsafed  to  permit  us  to  exercise  the  priesthood 
in  thy  presence.  We  beseech  thee  to  look  down 
favourably  upon  these  gifts  in  honour  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  send  down  upon  this  sacrifice  thy  Holy  Spirit, 
thelwittness  of  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ, 
that  he  may  make  this  bread  become  the  body  of  thy 
Christ,  and  this  chalice  his  blood;  we  offer  to  thee, 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  129 

&x."#  The  prayers  are  long  and  very  beautiful.  At  the 
moment  of  communion,  the  people  exclaim;  "Hosanna 
to  the  son  of  David,  blessed  be  the  Lord  God,  who 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  has  shewn  him- 
self to  us."  The  rubric  adds:  "The  Bishop  gives  the 
Eucharist  with  these  words:  It  is  the  body  of  Jctus 
Christ.  The  receiver  answers;  Amen.  The  Deacon 
gives  the  chalice,  saying:  It  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  cup  of  life.  The  receiver  answers;  Amen.  And 
after  the  communion,  the  Deacon  begins  the  thanks- 
giving, saying:  after  having  received  the  precious  body, 
and  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  let  us  give 
thanks  to  Him,  who  has  made  us  partake  of  his  myste- 
ries."    The  Bishop  concludes  it  by  a  noble  prayer. 

In  the  liturgy,  rather  alluded  to  than  reported  in  the 
second  book,  we  read  simply  as  follows:  "The  bene- 
diction is  followed  by  the  sacrifice,  during  which  all  the 
people  should  remain  standing  and  pray  in  silence;  and 
after  it  is  offered,  each  one,  in  order,  should  receive 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  approach  to  it  with 
the  fear  and  reverence  due  to  the  body  of  the  King." 

"We  beseech  thee,  O  God,  to  cause  that  this  obla- 
tion may  be  in  all  things  blessed,  admitted,  ratified, 
reasonable  and  acceptable,  that  it  may  become  for  us 
the  body  and  blood  of  thy  well  beloved  Son,  our  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ. . . ."  And  after  the  consecration:  "We 
offer  to  thy  supreme  majesty,  of  thy  gifts  and  benefits, 
a  pure  host,  a  holy  host,  an  unspotted  host,  the  holy 
bread  of  eternal  life,  and  the  chalice  of  everlasting 
salvation."  And  at  the  moment  of  communion,  the 
Priest  bowing  down  in  sentiments  of  profound  adora- 
tion and  humility,  addresses  himself  to  Jesus  Christ 
present  in  his  hands,  and  says  to  him  three  times: 
"Lord,  I  am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst  enter  under 
my  roof;  but  say  only  the  word,  and  my  soul  shall  be 

*Liturgy  taken  from  the  8th  Book  of  the  apostolic  Constitutions, 
written  in  the  4  th  century. 
12 


130  ANSWER  TO  THE 

healed."  And  giving  the  communion,  as  in  receiving 
it  himself,  he  declares  again  that  it  is  the  body  of  our 
Lord ,  Jesus  Christ* 

Such  were  the  expressions  of  the  liturgy  introduced 
into  the  British  isles  in  the  year  595,  and  which  was 
universally  celebrated  till  the  sixteenth  century  in  the 
three  kingdoms  of  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  as 
it  has  been  for  many  centuries  in  France,  Germany, 
Spain,  and  every  country  in  the  world,  where  there 
are  Latin  priests.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  produce 
in  this  place  the  ancient  liturgy  of  Spain,  since  we 
know  from  the  learned  St.  Isidore  among  others,  who 
succeeded  his  brother  St.  Leander  in  the  see  of  Seville 
in  600,  that  it  was  conformable  to  the  Roman  liturgy, 
of  which  we  have  just  given  an  extract,  in  the  canon 
and  essential  parts  of  the  mass. 

Unfortunately  we  have  no  manuscript  or  monument 
to  inform  us  of  the  ancient  liturgy  of  Gaul,  in  its  full 
extent  and  without  any  mixture  of  others.  There 
remains  an  abridged  exposition  of  the  mass,  composed 
by  St.  Germanus  of  Paris,  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century.  By  the  help  of  this  small  treatise,  and  of 
what  we  find  in  the  works  of  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  a 
few  years  after  St.  Germanus,  we  learn  however 
accurately  enough  the  ancient  order  of  the  Gallican 
mass,  and  the  learned  discover  in  it  more  analogy  with 
the  oriental  liturgies,  than  with  the  Roman. 

St.  Germanus,  speaking  of  the  gifts  placed  upon  the 
altar,  says;  u  The  bread  is  transformed  into  the  body, 
and  the  vine  into  the  blood.  The  Lord  having  said  of 
the  bread,  this  is  my  body,  and  of  the  wine,  this  is  my 
blood.  The  oblation  is  consecrated  upon  the  paten. 
The  angel  of  God  descends  upon  the  altar  as  upon  the 
monument,  and  blesses  the  host.  "When  the  fraction 
takes  place,  the  clergy,  in  a  suppliant  posture,  will  sing 
the  anthem:   Vouchsafe,  we  humbly  beseech  thee,  to 

'  Tlie  Roman  Liturgy,  according  to  tlic  sacramentary  of  Gelaslus. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  131 

receive  this  sacrifice,  to  bless  it,  and  sanctify  it,  that 
it  may  become  for  us  a  lawful  Eucharist  in  thy  name, 
and  that  of  thy  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  being 
transformed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  Jesus 
Christ,"* 

"May  the  spirit,  the  comforter  of  thy  blessing,  thy 
co-eternal  co-operator  descend,  O  my  God,  upon  these 
sacrifice?,  that  ....  this  aliment  being*  transformed 
into  flesh,  this  chalice  into  blood,  what  we  have  offered 
for  our  sins,  may  save  us  by  his  merits.  Ut  translata 
fruge  in  corpore,  calice  in  cruore,  proficiat  meritis 
quod  obtulimus  pro  delictis."t 

''•Beseeching  by  our  fervent  supplications,  that  he 
who  changed  water  into  wine  would  change  into  blood 
the  wine  which  we  ofter."J 

The  Gothico-Gallican  Missal  of  the  end  of  the 
seventh  century  contains  a  prayer  to  God  in  form  of 
an  invocation.  "That  thou  wouldst  vouchsafe  to  look 
down  with  an  eye  of  mercy  upon  these  gifts  brought  to 
thy  altar,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  of  thy  Son  would 
cover  them  with  his  shadow."  As  also  this  prayer 
after  the  consecration:  "Being  mindful  of  the  passion 
and  resurrection  of  our  most  glorious  Lord,  we  offer 
to  thee,  O  God,  this  spotless  host,  this  reasonable  host, 
this  unbloody  host."  Again  the  following  prayer  be- 
fore the  communion:  '-Accomplishing  the  sacred  solem- 
nities, which  we  have  offered  to  thee  according  to  the 
rite  of  the  high-priest  Melchisedech,  we  devoutly  be- 
seech thee,  O  eternal  Majesty,  for  grace  to  receive 
this  bread,  changed  into  flesh  by  the  operation  of  thy 
power;  this  drink,  changed  into  blood,  and  to  drink 
from  the.  chalice  the  same  blood,  ichich  ran  from  thy 
side  upon  the  cross." 

The  priest  takes  the  bread,  and  says  of  Jesus 
Christ:  |      "Taking  the  bread  in  his   holy,  spotless, 

*  Gallican  Liturgy — Mass  of  the  Circumcision. 

t  Mass  of  the  Assumption. 

X  On  the  Epiphany. 

||  Liturgy  of  St.  John,  or  of  Jerusalem. 


132  ANSWER  TO  THE 

and  immortal  hands,  lifting  up  his  eyes  to  heaven, 
shewing-  it  to  thee,  O  God,  his  Father,  giving  thanks 
to  thee,  sanctifying  it,  and  breaking  it,  he  gave  it  to 
us,  his  disciples  and  his  apostles,  saying:  take  and  eat, 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you,  and  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  (They  answer  amen.)  "In  like 
maimer  after  he  had  supped,  taking  the  chalice  and 
mixing  water  with  the  wine,  looking  up  to  heaven, 
shewing  it  to  thee,  O  God,  the  Father,  and  giving 
thanks,  sanctifying  it,  blessing  it,  filling  it  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  gave  it  to  us  his  disciples,  saying: 
Drink  ye  all  of  it;  it  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  is  shed  for  you  and  for  many,  and  which 
is  given  for'  the  remission  of  sins:5'  and  afterwards; 
"We  offer  to  thee,  O  Lord,  this  awful  and  unbloody 
sacrifice."  And  again;  "His  vivifying  spirit,  who 
reigns  with  thee,  O  God,  the  Father,  and  with  thy  only 
Son,  who  spoke  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in 
thy  New  Testament,  who  appeared  and  rested  in  the 
form  of  a  dove  upon  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  in  the  fiver 
of  Jordan,  who  descended  in  the  form  of  fiery  tongues 
in  the  supper-room  of  the  holy  and  glorious  Sion;  send 
down  now  this  Holy  Spirit  upon  us,  and  upon  these 
gifts,  that  by  his  holy,  beneficent,  and  glorious  pre- 
sence, he  may  make  this  bread  tlie  sacred  body  of  Jesus 
Christ,  Amen;  and  this  chalice  the  precious  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ ,  Amen"  Before  communion,  the  priest 
thus  addresses  himself  to  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  altar: 
uO  Lord,  my  God !  who  art  the  bread  of  heaven,  and 
life  of  the  world,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  and 
against  thee:  and  I  am  not  worthy  to  partake  of  thy 
most  pure  mysteries:  but  through  thy  divine  mercy, 
grant  that,  without  incurring  condemnation,  thy  grace 
may  make  me  worthy  to  receive  thy  sacred  body  and 
thy  precious  blood,  for  the  remission  of  my  sins,  and 
life  eternal."  At  the  communion  of  the  people,  the 
deacon  says:  "Approach  with  fear,  with  faith,  and  with 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  13c* 

love."      The   people   answer:    "Blessed   is   he    that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

"Receive  us  at  thy  holy  altar,"  says  the  priest  mak- 
ing the  oblation,  "according  to  thy  great  mercy,  grant 
that  we  may  be  worthy  to  offer  thee  this  rational,  un- 
bloody sacrifice,  for  our  sins,  and  for  all  the  ignorances 
of  the  people."*  Then  after  the  words  of  institution, 
which  are  not  omitted  in  any  liturgy  with  which  I  am 
acquainted,  the  priest  bowing  down  says  in  secret: 
"We  offer  to  thee  this  rational  and  unbloody  worship; 
and  we  beseech,  we  pray  and  entreat  thee,  to  send  down 
thy  Holy  Spirit  upon  us,  and  upon  these  offerings: .... 
make  indeed  this  bread  the  precious  body  of  thy  Christ;"' 
The  deacon,  answers  "Amen;"  And  what  is  in  this 
chalice,  "the  precious  blood  of  thy  Christ;"  The 
deacon,  Amen;"  " Changing  them  by  thy  Holy 
Spirit."  The  deacon,  "Amen,  Amen,  Amen."  After 
several  prayers,  addressing  himself  to  Jesus  Christ, 
the  priest  says:  "Look  down  on  us,  O  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  our  God,  from  thy  holy  dwelling,°and  from  the 
throne  of  the  glory  of  thy  kingdom,  and  come  to 
sanctify  us,  thou,  who  sittest  together  with  the  Father 
in  the  highest  heavens,  and  art  here  invisibly  present 
with  us;  and  vouchsafe,  with  thy  powerful  hand,  to 
impart  to  us  thy  immaculate  body  and  thy  precious 
blood,  and  by  us  to  all  the  people."  The  priest  and 
deacon  in  adoration  say  each  three  times:  "Have  mercy 
on  me  a  poor  sinner."  The  people  adore  in  like 
manner.  Before  the  communion,  the  priest  says  to 
the  deacon:  "Draw  near  "  The  deacon  bows  reverent- 
ly before  the  priest,  who  holds  a  part  of  the  sacred 
host.  The  deacon  says:  "Give  me,  O  Lord,  the  pre- 
cious and  holy  body  of  our  Lord,  God  and  Saviour. 
Jesus  Christ."  The  priest  gives  it  into  his  hand  say- 
ing: "I  give  to  thee  the  precious,  and  holy,  and  pure 
body  of  our  Lord,  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." — 
Then  the  priest  and  deacon  bowing  down  and  holding 

*Liturgy  of  Constantinople,  called  that  of  the  Apostles,  and  later, 
that  of  St.  Chrysostom. 

12* 


134  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  sacred  host,  make  together  an  admirable  confes- 
sion of  faith,  which  begins  thus:  "I  believe,  O  Lord, 
and  I  confess,  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,  who  didst  come  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners,  of  whom  I  am  the  chief;  make  me  a  partaker  of 
thy  mystical  supper.  I  will  not  reveal  the  mystery  to 
thy  enemies',  nor  will  I  give  thee  a  kiss  like  Judas;  but 
like  the  good  thief,  I  confess  what  thou  art."  I  re- 
gret that  I  cannot  here  transcribe  the  whole  of  this 
confession,  which  ends  with  these  words:  "O  Lord  our 
God,  forgive  me  all  my  sins,  thou  who  art  goodness 
itself;  and  by  the  intercession  of  thy  immaculate  Moth- 
er, ever  a  Virgin,  grant  that  without  incurring  condem- 
nation, I  may  receive  thy  precious  and  most  pure  body" 
Then  the  priest  presents  the  chalice  to  the  deacon,  who 
says:  "Behold  I  come  to  the  immortal  King:  I  believe, 
O  Lord,  and  confess  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God."  The  priest  says  to  him,  "Servant  of 
God,  Deacon  N.  thou  dost  communicate  of  the  pre- 
cious, and  holy  body,  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  thy  sins,  and 
everlasting  life." 

The  deacon  going  to  communicate  the  people  says: 
"Approach  to  God  with  fear  and  faith;  the  choir  an- 
swers, Amen,  Amen,  Amen;  blessed  is  he  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord." — Receiving  the  consecrat- 
ed species  of  bread  and  wine  in  a  spoon,  the  commu- 
nicant says:  "I  believe,  O  Lord,  and  confess  that  thou 
art  truly  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  The  deacon  says 
to  him:  "Servant  of  God,  receive  the  most  holy  body  and 
the  precious  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

This  liturgy  is  followed  by  all  the  Greeks  who  are 
in  the  West,  at  Rome',  in  Calabria,  in  Apulia;  by  the 
Mingrelians,  Georgians,  Bulgarians,  Russians,  and 
Muscovites;  by  all  the  modern  Melchite  Christians 
dependant  on  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria  residing  at 
Cairo,  on  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  patriarch 
of  Antioch  resident  at  Damascus. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  \So 

Those  from  which  we  shall  now  give  extracts  are* 
the  liturgy  of  St.  Mark,  called  that  of  St.  Cyril;  that 
of  St.  Basil  and  that  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nazfanzen. 
The  Jacobite  Coptic  Christians  opposed  to  the  council 
of  Chalcedon  in  451  have  continued  to  make  use  of 
them,  and  have  done  so  for  1200  years. 

In  the  preparatory  prayer,  the  priest  says:  "O 
Lord,  do  thou  make  us  worthy,  by  the  power  of  thy 
Holy  Spirit,  to  perform  this  ministry,  that  Ave  may 
not  incur  judgment  before  the  throne  cf  thy  glory,  and 
may  offer  thee  this  sacrifice  of  blessing.'"  Some  of 
the  words  of  the  oblation:  "O  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  only 
begotten  Son,  word  of  God  the  Father,  consubstan- 
tial  and  co-eternal  with  Him  and  the  Holy  Ghost .  .  . 
look  down  on  this  bread  and  on  this  chalice,  which 
we  have  placed  on  this  thy  sacerdotal  table;  bless 
them,  sanctify  them,  and  consecrate  them;  change  them, 
so  that  indeed  this  bread  may  become  thy  holy  body; 
and  that  which  is  mixed  in  this  chalice,  thy  precious 
blood. "  After  having  religiously  recited  the  words 
of  institution,  the  priest  continues:  "We  adore  thee, 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  thy  will,  and  we 
entreat  thee,  O  Christ,  our  God,  we  sinners  and  thy 
unworthy  servants,  that  thy  Holy  Spirit  may  come 
down  upon  us,  and  upon  his  proposed  gifts,  to  sanctify 
them,  ....  and  to  make  of  this  bread  the  holy  body  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  is 
given  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  everlasting  life  to 
him,  who  shall  receive  him."  The  people  answer, 
Amen.  "And  of  this  chalice  to  make  the  precious  blood 
of  the  New  Testament  of  our  Lord,  God  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  is  given  for  the  remission  of 
sins  and  everlasting  life  to  him,  who  shall  receive  him." 
The  people  answer,  Amen.  At  the  breaking  of  the 
host  the  priest  says,  "O  Lord,  our  God,  ....  thou,  who 
hast  sanctified  these  oblations  placed  before  thee,  by 

*  Liturgy  of  Alexandria. 


136  ANSWER  TO  THE 

making  thy  Holy  Spirit  descend  upon  them."  At  the 
approach  of  the  communion,  the  Deacon  gives  notice 
by  these  words;  "be  attentive  and  trembling  before 
God."  The  people:  "O  Lord,  have  mercy  on  us." 
^ hen  the  priest  taking  in  his  hand  the  larger  part  of 
the  host,  elevates  it,  and  then  bows  down  and  exclaims 
with  a  loud  voice:  "Holy  things  for  holy  persons." 
The  people  prostrate  uith  their  faces  to  the  ground. 
Then  comes  the  profession  of  faith,  which  the  priest 
makes  in  these  terms:  "  The  holy  body,  and  precious, 
pure,  true  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son,  our  God. 
Amen.  The  body  and  blood  of  Emmanuel,  our  God, 
this  is  in  real  truth.  Amen.  I  believe,  I  believe,  I 
believe,  and  confess,  to  the  last  breath  of  my  life,  that 
this  is  the  life  giving  body  of  thine  only  begotten  Son, 
our  Lord  God,  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ.  He  receiv- 
ed it  from  the  Lady  of  us  all,  the  Mother  of  God,  the 
sacred  and  holy  Mary,  and  made  it  one  with  his  divi- 
nity, without  confusion,  without  mixture  or  alteration. 
He  gave  of  himself  a  good  testimony  before  Pontius 
Pilate,  and  delivered  himself  for  us  to  the  tree  of  the 
holy  cross,  by  his  only  will,  and  for  us  all.  I  believe 
truly  that  his  divinky  was  never  separated  from  his 
humanity,  not  an  hour,  not  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.* 
He  delivered  up  his  body  for  the  salvation,  remission 
of  sins  and  eternal  life  of  those,  who  shall  receive  him. 
Thus  I  believe  in  exact  truth."! 

*  These  words  convey  a  sense  perfectly  Catholic;  they  mark 
union  and  not  mixture;  they  do  not  confound  the  two  natures  as 
the  Eutychians  did.  And  in  fact  the  Jacobites  attached  to  Dios- 
corus,  rejected,  it  is  true,  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  which  had 
condemned  him;  T)utJ  they  equally  anathematized  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches,  according  to  the  edict  of  union  of  the  emperor  Zeno, 
which  they  always  received. 

t  We  are  indebted  for  the  information  acquired  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Coptic  Jacobites,  to  the  travels,  intelligence  and  labours 
of  the  learned  Vansleb,  born  at  Erfurt.  He  studied  the  Ethiopian 
language  under  M.  Ludolff,  who  induced  the  Duke  of  Saxony  to 
send  him  to  the  Levant,  and  into  Ethiopia,  iu  the  hope  of  his 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  1 37 

The  liturgies  of  Ethiopia  or  of  Abyssinia  so  much 
resemble  those  of  the  Coptic  Jacobites,  that  it  will 
suffice  to  quote  some  passages  peculiar  to  them.  The 
liturgy  instituted  by  the  318  Fathers  expresses  the 
invocation  in  the  following  manner:  "We  beseech  thee 
therefore  and  entreat  thee,  O  Lord,  graciously  to  send 
thy  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  cause  him  to  descend,  to  come 
and  diffuse  his  light  over  this  bread,  that  it  may  be- 
come the  body  of  our  Lord,  and  that  what  is  contained 
in  this  chalice  may  be  changed  and  may  become  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.*  Another  liturgy  translated 
into  Latin  by  Mr.  LudolfF,  a  Lutheran,  speaks  thus: 
"We  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  and  entreat  thee,  to  send 
thy  Holy  Spirit  and  his  power  upon  this  bread,  and 
upon  this  chalice,  that  he  may  make  of  them  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  for 
ages  of  ages." 

The  liturgy  called  of  the  Apostlesf  after  the  words 
of  our  Saviour,  continues  thus:  "The  people  say; 
Amen,  Amen,  Amen;  we  believe  it,  we  are  certain 
of  it,  we  praise  thee,  O  Lord,  our  God.  It  is  truly 
thy  body,  ice  believe  it  to  be  so;  and  after  the  words  over 
the  chalice,  the  people  say  Amen,  it  is  truly  thy  blood, 
we  believe  it."  Here  we  see  before  the  communion 
that  lively  and  strong  profession  of  faith,  which  I  have 

making  discoveries  there  favourable  to  Lutheranism.  Not  being 
able  to  reach  Ethiopia,  Vansleb  applied  himself  to  the  Jacobite 
liturgies,  examined  them  thoroughly,  was  convinced  by  them  of 
the  errors  of  his  own  communion,  became  a  Catholic,  and  after- 
wards a  Dominican  at  Rome.  He  came  into  France,  and  was 
graciously  received  by  M.  Colbert.  This  great  minister,  who 
sought  nothing  so  eagerly  as  men  capable  of  seconding  his  va~t 
aud  noble  designs,  sent  him  back  to  the  Levant,  with  orders  to 
purchase  all  the  oriental  JMSS.  which  he  could  find.  Vansleb 
sent  more  than  five  hundred  to  the  Bibliotheque  du  Roi.  After 
vainly  attempting  to  penetrate  into  Ethiopia,  he  returned  in  1676 
into  France,  where  he  died  a  few  years  afterwards. 

■  Translation  of  Vansleb,  History  of  Alexandria,  Chapter  on  Tran- 
substantiation. 

t  Latin  translation  of  Renaudot. 


133  ANSWER  TO  THE 

copied  from  the  Coptic  liturgy;  it  stands  here  with  the 
same  expressions.  The  Priest  gives  the  communion 
to  the  people  with  these  words:  "This  is  the  bread  of 
life  which  comes  down  from  heaven,  truly  the  precious 
body  of  Emmanuel,  our  God."  The  communicant 
answers,  "Amen,"  The  deacon  presents  the  chalice, 
saying:  "This  is  the  chalice  of  life,  which  comes 
down  from  heaven,  and  which  is  the  precious  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ."  The  communicant  answers,  "Amen, 
Amen." 

The  liturgies  were  much  more  multiplied  among  the 
Syrians,  than  among  the  other  Christian  Churches. 
That  of  St.  James  is  considered  by  them  as  the  most 
ancient,  the  most  common,  and  that  which  contains 
the  whole  order  of  the  Mass,  to  which  all  the  others 
have  a  reference.  I  have  already  quoted  some  portions 
of  it  from  the  Greek  version.  I  will  now  produce 
others  from  Syriac.  At  the  preparation  of  the  sacra- 
flee,  the  deacon  says:  "O  God,  who  in  thy  mercy  didst 
accept  the  sacrifices  of  the  ancient  just,  accept  also 
in  thy  mercy  our  sacrifice,  and  vouchsafe  to  accept 
our  prayers."  Between  the  words  of  institution,  and 
those  of  invocation,  which  are  the  same  here  as  in  the 
Greek  version,  the  deacon  announces  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  gifts,  by  a  very  striking  ad- 
monition. "How  terrible,  O  my  brethren,  is  this  hour, 
how  awful  is  this  moment,  when  the  holy  and  life- 
giving  Spirit  is  about  to  descend  from  the  highest 
heavens,  and  bow  down  upon  this  Eucharist  placed  in 
the  sanctuary,  and  sanctify  it;  be  ye  therefore  in  fear 
and  trembling;  keep  yourselves  in  prayer;  may  peace 
be  with  you,  and  the  security  of  God,  the  Father  of  us 
all.  Let  us  exclaim  three  times,  "Kyrie  efcison."  Then 
follows  the  invocation,  the  same  as  in  the  Greek  version. 
The  deacon  makes  afterwards  a  very  beautiful  prayer 
in  a  loud  voice:  "Bless  us  again  and  again,  O  my  God, 
by  this  holy  oblation,  by  this  propitiatory  sacrifice, 
which  is  offered  to  God,  the  Father,  which  is  sanctified, 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  139 

completed,  and  perfected  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  life-giver.  ...  Ye  ministers  of  the  Church, 
tremble;  for  you  administer  a  burning  fire:  the  power 
which  is  given  you  is  greater  than  that  of  the  Sera- 
phim. Happy  the  soul  who  presents  herself  with 
purity  at  this  altar!  For  the  Holy  Ghost  inscribes 
her  name,  and  carries  it  to  heaven.  Tremble  deacons, 
at  the  sacred  hour  when  the  Holy  Ghost  descends  to 

sanctify  the  body  of  those,  who  receive  him Be 

mindful  of  the  absent,  O  my  God!  take  pity  on  us. 
Peace  and  repose  to  the  souls  of  the  departed:  pardon 
the  sinners  at  the  day  of  judgment:  tbose,  who  are  de- 
parted and  separated  from  us  by  death;  O  Christ  place 
their  souls  in  peace,  with  the  pious  and  the  just:  let  thy 
cross  be  their  support,  thy  baptism  their  garment:  let  thy 
body  and  blood  be  to  them  the  guide  to  conduct  them 
to  thy  kingdom."  The  deacon  addressing  himself  after- 
wards to  the  people,  says :  "Bote  down  your  heads  be- 
fore the  God  of  mercies,  before  the  propitiatory  altar, 
and  before  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour."  At 
the  fraction,  and  communion  of  the  priest,  it  is  always 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  broken  and 
sprinkled  witb  his  blood;  the  holy  body,  the  life-giving 
body  which  he  receives.  The  deacon  administering 
it  to  the  people,  says:  "My  brethren,  the  Church  cries 
out  to  you:  receive  the  body  of  the  Son,  drink  his 
blood  with  faith  ....  this  is  the  chalice  which  our  Lord 
mingled  upon  the  tree  of  the  cross;  approach  mortals, 
drink  of  it  for  the  remission  of  your  sins." 

The  following  is  the  invocation  of  the  Syriac  liturgy, 
called  that  of  St.  Maruthas,  Metropolitan  of  Tagrit  in 
Mesopotamia,  and  a  friend  of  St.  Chrysostom V,  * 
"Have  mercy  on  me,  O  my  God,  who  lovest  mankind, 
send  upon  me,  and  upon  this  holy  oblation  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  proceeds  from  thee,  who  receives  of  thy 
Son  and  perfects  all  the  mysteries  of  the  Church,  who 

*  From  the  Latin  of  Renaudot. 


140  ANSWER  TO  THE 

reposes  upon  these  oblations  and  sanctifies  them." 
The  people,  "pray:"  the  priest:  "Hear  me,  O  my 
God:"  the  people  thrice;  "Kyrie  eleison:"  the  priest, 
raising  his  voice;  "that  he  may  make  this  mere  bread 
by  transmutation  (transmutet  atque  efficiat)  the  very 
same  body,  which  was  immolated  upon  the  cross,  the 
same  body,  which  rose  again  with  glory,  and  never 
knew  corruption !  the  body,  which  prepares  life !  the 
body  of  the  word  himself,  God,  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins  (the  people,  "Amen,") 
and  the  mingled  wine  which  is  in  the  chalice,  he  may 
make  by  transmutation  (transmutet  et  perficiat)  the  very 
same  blood,  which  was  shed  on  the  summit  of  Golgotha! 
The  same  blood,  which  streamed  down  upon  the  earth, 
and  purified  it  from  sin !  The  same  blood,  which  pre- 
pares for  life,  the  blood  of  the  Lord  himself,  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life  to  those,  who  shall 
receive  him. 

At  the  offertory  the  priest  says;*  "May  Christ, 
who  was  immolated  for  our  salvation,  and  has  com- 
manded us  to  commemorate  his  death  and  resurrection, 
may  Christ  himself  receive  this  sacrifice  presented 
by  our  unworthy  hands!"  And  as  he  had  desired  the 
concurrence  of  the  people,  they  answer:  "May  the 
Lord  gratiously  hear  thy  prayers,  may  he  be  pleased 
with  thy  sacrifice,  and  vouchsafe  to  accept  thy  obla- 
tion, and  honour  thy  priesthood !"  The  priest  says: 
"May  thy  Holy  Spirit  come,  O  my  God,  and  repose 
upon  the  oblation  of  thy  servants;  may  he  bless  it,  and 
sanctify  it !"  In  this  M.  S.  the  prayers  for  the  conse- 
cration are  wanting;  but  at  the  breaking  of  the  host,  at 
the  mingling  of  the  species,  the  liturgy  speaks  only  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  precious 
blood,  the  life-giving  body.    At  the  communion,  the 

*Nestorian  Liturgies — that  called  of  the  apostles,  from  the  Latin 
of  Rinaudot. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  141 

<ieacon  exclaims :  "Let  us  all  approach  with  tremb- 
ling." And  again,  "My  brethren,  receive  the  body  of 
the  Son — the  voice  of  the  Church — and  drink  his 
chalice  with  faith."  And  in  an  act  of  thanksgiving, 
the  priest  says:  "Christ  our  God,  Lord,  King,  Saviour, 
and  giver  of  life,  has  graciously  made  us  worthy  to 
receive  his  body  and  his  precious  and  sanctifying' 
blood." 

"With  hearts  filled  with  fear  and  veneration,*  let 
us  all  approach  to  the  mystery  of  the  body  and  pre- 
cious blood  of  our  Saviour,  —  and  now,  O  Lord, 
that  thou  hast  called  me  to  thy  holy  and  pure  altar  to 
offer  thee  this  living  and  holy  sacrifice,  make  me 
worthy  to  receive  this  gift  with  purity  and  sanctity." 

And  again  the  priest  says  at  the  communion:  "O 

Lord,  my  God,  I  am  not  worthy,  and  it  is  not  right  that 
I  should  receive  thy  body,  and.  the  blood  of  propitia- 
tion, nor  even  that  I  should  touch  them;  but  let  thy 
word  sanctify  my  soul,  and  heal  my  body?"  And  in 
the  thanksgiving  after  communion,  the  priest  says : 
"Strengthen  our  hands,  which  have  been  stretched  out 

to  receive  the   Holy  One repair  by  a  new  life 

those  bodies  which  have  tasted  thy  living  body God 

has  filled  us  with  blessings  by  his  living  Son,  who  for 
our  salvation  bowed  down  from  the  highest  heaven, 
put  on  our  body,  and  gave  its  his  own,  and  mingled  his 
venerable  blood  with  our  blood,  a  mystery  of  propitia- 
tion 

After  the  words  of  institution,  the  deacon  says 
aloud:f  "Silence  and  trembling!"  Then  comes  the 
invocation,  which  the  priest  commences  thus,  in  an  in- 
clined posture;  "may  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
come  down  upon  us,  and  upon  this  oblation;  may  he 
dwell  aud  infuse  himself  on  the  bread  aud  on  the  chalice; 
may  he  bless  and  sanctify  them:  ....  may  the  bread,  by 
the  virtue  of  thy  name,  this  bread,  I  say,  be  madethe  holy 

*  Liturgy  of  the  Nestorians  of  Malabar. 

]Liturgy  of  Theodorus,  of  Mopsuestia,  translated  by  Renaudot. 

13 


142  ANSWER  TO  THE 

body  of  our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ:  and  this  chalice,  the 
blood  of  our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ." 

The  invocation  is  expressed  as  follows:*  "O  my 
God,  may  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  come,  and 
dwell,  and  rest  on  this  oblation,  which  we  are  offer- 
ing before  thee;  may  he  sanctify  it,  and  make  it,  that 
is,  this  bread  and  chalice,  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  thou  transmuting  them  (transmu- 
tante  ea  te,)  and  sanctifying  them,  by  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

In  all  other  parts,  this  liturgy  of  Nestorius  and  the 
preceding  one  of  Theodorus,  resemble  the  first  insti- 
tuted by  the  apostles. 

At  the  oblation  of  the  mass  for  the  dead,f  we  find 
these  words:  "Holy  Father,  lover  of  mankind,  re- 
ceive this  sacrifice  in  memory  of  the  dead:  place  their 
souls  among  the  saints  in  the  heavenly  kingdom:  may 
thy  divinity  be  appeased  by  this  sacrifice,  which  we 
offer  thee  with  faith,  and  grant  the  repose  of  their 
souls!"  At  the  canon,  the  priest  says  of  our  Saviour, 
"taking  the  bread  in  his  divine,  immortal,  spotless 
hands,  which  have  also  the  power  of  creating,  he  blessed 

it,  gave  thanks,  broke  it,  &c O  God  send  upon  us, 

and  upon  these  gifts  thy  holy,  co-eternal  and  con-sub- 
stantial Spirit:"  [Here  the  deacon  bows  down  at  the 
corner  of  the  altar:]  "that  thou  mayest  make  this  blessed 
bread  the  body  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ;" 
and  holding  the  host  over  the  chalice,  he  adds,  "that 
thou  mayest  make  this  blessed  bread  and  wine,  the  true 
body  and  very  flesh,  and  the  true  blood  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  changing  them  by  thy  Spirit." 
....  The  priest  adores  thrice,  and  kisses  the  altar,  and 
from  that  time  he  does  not  any  more  raise  his  hands 
above  the  offerings.  Now  fixing  his  eyes  upon  them 
he  adores  them  as  God,  and  represents  to  him  his 

*  Lit.  of  Nestorius,  from  the  Latin  of  Renaudot. 
t  Armenian  Liturgy,  from  the  Latin  of  Mr.  Pidou  de  Saint  Olon, 
Bp.  of  Babylon,  and  the  French  of  P.  Le  Brun. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  143 

desires  with  tears Towards  the  communion,  the 

priest  adores,  and  kisses  the  altar;  taking  the  sacred 
body,  he  dips  it  entirely  in  the  precious  blood,  saying: 
aO  Lord,  our  God  ....  we  beseech  thee  to.  make  us 
worthy  to  receive  this  sacrament  for  the  remission  of 
our  sins."  The  priest  with  humility  elevating  from 
the  holy  table  the  sacred  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  turns  towards  the  people,  and 
exhibits  them,  saying:  "Let  us  taste  in  a  holy  manner 
of  this  holy,  sacred,  and  precious  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord,  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  who  descending 
from  the  heavens  is  distributed  among  us."  He  says 
afterwards,  "I  confess  and  believe  that  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  who  didst  bear  the  sins  of  the 

world O  Jesus  Christ,  my  God !  /  taste  with 

faith  thy  holy  and  life-giving  body  for  the  remission  of 
my  sins.  O  my  God,  Jesus  Christ,  I  taste  with  faith 
thy  purifying  and  sanctifying  blood  for  the  remission  of 
my  sins."  Then  making  upon  his  mouth  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  he  says  these  words  of  St.  Thomas  the  apostle; 
"may  thy  incorruptible  body  be  in  me  for  life,  and  thy 
sacred  blood  for  the  propitiation  and  remission  of  sins!" 
Then  turning  towards  the  people  with  the  chalice: 
"Approach  with  fear,  with  faith,  and  communicate  in  a 
holy  manner."  During  the  communion  of  the  people,  a 
canticle  is  sung  with  these  words:  "This  bread  is  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ;  this  chalice  is  the  blood  of  the 
New  Testament:  the  hidden  sacrament  is  made  manifest 
to  us,  and  thereby  shews  himself  to  us;  here  is  Jesus 
Christ  the  Word  of  God,  who  is  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Farther — he  is  sacrificed  in  the  midst  of 
us,"  &c. 

VII.  After  the  extracts  you  have  now  read,  per- 
mit me,  sir,  to  conclude  the  subject  of  the  liturgies  by 
a  two-fold  supposition,  which  will  personally  concern 
you,  inasmuch  as  it  will  place  your  existence  about 
the  year  256,  under  Decius.  I  will  suppose  then  that 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  certain  motives  of 


144  ANSWER  TO  THE 

curiosity  or  business  had  led  you  into  different  coun- 
tries, and  had  afforded  you  opportunities  of  assisting 
at  the  divine  worship.  You  would  have  found  in  the 
several  countries,  in  substance,  the  same  liturgy.  At 
Rome,  at  Carthage,  or  Alexandria;  at  Jerusalem, 
Ephesus,  or  Antioch;  at  Corinth,  or  Athens;  in  Spain, 
or  in  Gaul,  you  would  have  heard  the  same  prayers 
recited,  the  same  invocations,  at  least  in  signification, 
to  obtain  the  change  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ;  the  same  professions  of 
faith  in  the  real  presence  of  the  divine  victim;  you 
would  have  adored  him  upon  the  altar,  receiving  him 
with  your  brother  Christians;  and  with  them  you  would 
have  derived  from  these  sublime  dogmas  an  angelic 
fervour,  and  sentiments  above  the  terrors  of  this  world, 
a  courage  unshaken  and  super-human  in  the  fire  of 
persecution,  at  the  glare  of  the  faggot,  and  the  sight 
of  the  sword. 

I  will  suppose  in  the  second  place,  that  at  the  end 
of  your  travels,  arriving  in  some  great  city,  you  fell  in 
with  some  Christian  congregation,  which  however 
would  have  been  impossible  at  that  period,  where  you 
heard  some  venerable  ecclesiastic  explain  to  the  peo- 
ple that  what  was  elsewhere  called  an  unbloody  sacri- 
fice was  no  more  than  a  pious  chimera;  that  the  altar 
of  the  Christians  was  an  altar  without  a  victim;  that 
every  thing  there  was  in  figure;  that  the  presence  of 
our  Saviour  was  only  a  fiction,  since  his  body  had  been 
long  ago  in  heaven,  and  could  not  at  the  same  time  be 
found  upon  earth;  that  the  change  effected  in  the  offer- 
ings by  the  Omnipotence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  consisted 
in  making  a  religious  emblem  of  a  domestic  aliment; 
that  after  the  consecration,  the  substances  offered 
were  what  they  had  been  before,  literal  bread  and 
literal  wine;  and  that  consequently  the  adoration  of 
Catholicism  was  gross  idolatry.  What  then  would 
have  been  your  sentiments?  Allow  me,  sir,  to  ask  you: 
would  you  not  have  left  this  congregation  with  perfect 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  145 

horror?  Would  you  not  have  fled  with  precipitation 
from  such  a  preacher?  Doubtless  you  would  from  that 
time  have  been  even  more  ardently  attached  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  Church.  Well  then,  my 
dear  sir,  what  you  would  have  done  then,  do,  I  be- 
seech you,  now.  The  ancient  liturgies  are  still  those 
of  the  Catholics;  your  own  is  new,  national,  and  dis- 
cordant. The  language  of  ^  the  supposed  heterodox 
preacher  is  precisely  that  of  the  Rector  of  Long  New- 
ton. Both  declaim  against  the  faith  of  the  primitive 
Church!  both  are  at  open  war  with  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles,  with  the  oblation  transmitted  by  them  to  the 
Church.  Return,  sir,  I  conjure  you,  to  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  the  beautiful  ages  of  antiquity.  It  is 
not  you  alone,  nor  the  laity  only,  to  whom  I  now  most 
solemnly  appeal.  I  appeal  to  all  those  to  whom  I 
dedicated  my  Discussion  Amicale;  I  appeal  especially 
to  the  Rev.  G-.  S.  Faber,  to  the  doctors  of  your  univer- 
sities, to  those  of  every  communion,  holding,  like  your 
own,  opinions  manifestly  opposed  to  that  apostolical 
tradition,  which  is  imprinted  on  all  the  ancient  litur- 
gies, in  characters  uniform  and  indelible.* 

*I  cannot  too  strongly  recommend  to  my  readers  the  very  curious 
work  of1  P.  Le  Brun,  where  all  the  liturgies,  ancient  and  modern 
are  exhibited.  This  work  is  indispensable  for  the  young  clergy, 
who  are  applying  to  theology  in  the  universities  of  Oxford  and 
Cambridge.  I  invite  them  to  take  with  it  the  dissertation  of 
Schelestadt  De  disciplina  arcani.  In  these  two  works  they  will  find 
most  solid  and  essentially  necessary  information  on  the  history  and 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church. 


13< 


146  ANSWER  TO  THE 


CHAPTER  THE  FOURTH. 


GENERAL  PROOF  OF  OUR  DOCTRINE  ON  THE  EUCHAR- 
IST FROM  THE  CATECHESES. 


Particular  Proofs  from  the  Fathers. 

I.  Every  one  who  has  studied  the  monuments  of 
tradition  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  must  have 
remarked  a  singular  difference  in  the  expressions  of 
the  Fathers,  when  they  speak  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
altar.  Sometimes  they  explain  themselves  with  all 
imaginable  clearness,  on  the  reality  of  the  presence 
of  Jesus  Christ  under  the  species,  and  on  the  change 
of  substance.  At  other  times  they  designate  the 
gifts  offered,  by  the  expressions  of  symbols,  types, 
signs,  figures,  representations,  or  allegories  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  diversity 
of  language,  occurs  not  only  among  different  doctors, 
but  often  even  in  the  same  Father,  for  example,  in  St. 
Chrysostom,  or  St.  Augustin.  The  Catholics  with 
good  reason  attach  themselves  to  the  passages  of  the 
former  kind,  while  they  give  the  most  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  the  others.  The  Protestant  sacramenta- 
rians  build  upon  the  passages  of  the  latter  kind,  which 
suit  their  opinions;  and  at  the  same  time,  glide  hastily 
over  those  of  the  first  description,  which  overthrow 
their  system.  Both  parties,  agree  that  the  Fathers  are 
not  to  be  accused  of  being  contradictory  to  one  another, 
and  still  less  to  themselves.  But,  as  far  as  1  know, 
neither  Catholics  nor  Protestants  have  ever  yet  asked 
themselves  the  cause  of  this  difference  of  language  on 
the  same  subject?  Why  the  Fathers,  after  having 
spoken  entirely  in  the  sense  of  the  real  presence,  ap- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  1 47 

pear  in  other  places  to  express  themselves  in  that  of 
a  figurative  presence.  It  is  however  a  duty  to  make 
sucli  enquiry,  and  this  is  the  precise  point  to  be  inves- 
tigated and  cleared  up,  in  order  to  dissipate  the  slightest 
cloud,  and  bring  forth  in  the  full  blaze  of  day  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers — the  real  belief  of  the  primi- 
tive Church. 

II.  The  answer  to  this  important  question  is  by  no 
means  difficult;  and  1  am  persuaded,  sir,  that  you  have 
not  arrived  thus  far,  without  foreseeing  it  yourself, 
without  my  suggestion.  The  Fathers,  as  you  know, 
lived  under  the  discipline  of  the  secret^  and  observed 
it  so  strictly  that  they  were  ready  to  shed  their  blood, 
as  were  the  faithful  after  their  example,  rather  than 
violate  it  by  betraying  the  mysteries;  and  among  others, 
that  of  the  Eucharist.  They  could  speak  openly  of  it, 
without  fear,  to  the  faithful,  either  in  their  family 
circles,  or  in  the  church  in  discourses  delivered  be- 
fore them  exclusively:  they  were  obliged  to  expose  them 
with  all  possible  clearness  to  the  neophytes,  previous 
to  admitting  them  to  communion  and  on  the  following 
days.*  On  the  contrary,  in  presence  of  the  unbaptiz- 
ed  the  secret  was  scrupulously  kept.  And  you  will 
readily  conceive,  that  if  it  were  prohibited  to  confide 
the  least  portion  to  a  single  individual  uninitiated,  it 
must  have  been  much  more  so  to  speak  openly  of  the 


*"On  the  eve  of  the  great  day  of  Easter  and  of  your  regenera- 
tion, we  shall  teach  you  with  what  devotion  you  must  come  forth 
from  baptism,  approach  the  altar;  and  partake  of  the  spiritual 
and  heavenly  mysteries,  which  are  there  offered,  that  your  souls 
being  enlightened  by  our  instructions  and  discourses,  each  one  of 
you  may  know  the  greatness  of  the  presents,  which  God  gives 
him."  (S.  Cyr.  of  Jcruc.  Catteh.  18.)  "We  shall  only  speak  now 
of  things,  which  cannot  be  explained  before  catechumens,  but 
which  it  is  necessary  nevertheless  to  lay  open  to  those,  who  have 
been  recently  baptized."  (St.  Gaudcntius  to  the  Xcoph.)  "In  this 
paschal  solemnity,"  said  St.  Augustin,  (Serin,  on  the  5//i  day  after 
Easter,)  "these  first  seven  or  eight  days  are  devoted  to  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  children,  (the  newly  baptized)  upon  the  sacraments." 


148  ANSWER  TO  THE 

mysteries  in  writings  intended  for  public  circulation. 
"How  could  it  be  allowed,"  says  St.  Basil,  "to  publish 
written  explanations,  of  what  the  uninitiated  are  for- 
bidden to  contemplate?'1 

III.  What  then,  in  these  days,  has  he  to  do,  who 
would  understand  clearly  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers 
on  the  Eucharist?  What  course  will  he  take  to  attain 
his  object?  It  would  be  the  height  of  folly  to  seek 
their  belief  in  writings  where  they  were  not  permitted  to 
divulge  it;  in  those,  for  instance,  which  they  published 
against  the  pagans  and  heretics  of  their,  times:  or  in 
discourses  pronounced  with  open  doors  before  catechu- 
mens and  gentiles.  Any  sensible  man  wishing  to  learn 
in  the  school  of  the  Fathers  what  has  been  revealed 
on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  will  open  those 
instructions,  which  they  gave  to  the  newly  baptized. 
He  will  take  his  place,  not  among  the  catechumens, 
before  whom  they  concealed  the  mysteries;  but  among 
the  neophytes,  to  whom  it  was  a  necessary  duty  to 
display  them.  These  are,  in  the  outset,  the  writings, 
which  any  man  of  sincerity  will  consult,  when  desirous 
of  knowing  with  certainty,  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers; 
but  the  catecheses  before  all,  and  even  them  alone,  if 
he  would  spare  himself  much  labour  and  research. 
For  with  them,  he  is  sure  to  discover  what  the  Fathers 
believed,  and  what  they  taught:  and  by  consequence, 
with  them  he  may  save  himself  all  farther  trouble. 

Nevertheless  I  would  advise  him  to  consult  another 
kind  of  monuments,  from  which  he  will  derive  parti- 
cular edification  without  any  trouble,  and  a  firmness  in 
faith  most  valuable  in  the  evil  days  in  which  we  live. 
I  allude  to  the  liturgies,  which  are  so  evidently  con- 
nected with  the  catecheses.  In  fact,  what  did  these 
latter  teach  the  neophytes?  They  taught  what  passed 
at  the  altar.  And  what  else  do  the  liturgies  describe? 
Both  then  necessarily  contain  the  same  mysteries,  the 
same  doctrine,  the  same  creed  What  the  catecheses 
put  forth  in  theory,  the  liturgies   exhibit    in   action. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  149 

There  are  the  principles,  motives  and  reasons  for  be- 
lieving: here  the  sentiments  of  gratitude,  love  and 
adoration  which  faith  inspires.  If  a  more  extensive 
knowledge  were  desired,  it  might  be  found  in  the 
sermons  preached  before  the  faithful  exclusively,  for 
then  the  orator  felt  no  restraint  in  expressing  himself 
openly,  whenever  his  subject  led  him  to  speak  on  the 
Holy  Eucharist. 

IV.  But  at  our  distance  from  the  primitive  times, 
how  are  we,  in  these  days,  to  distinguish  among  so 
many  homilies  and  sermons,  those  at  which  none  as- 
sisted but  the  initiated,  from  those  attended  by  other 
persons?     How,  after  so  many  centuries,  are  we  to 
understand,  whether  the  audience  was  composed  pure- 
ly of  the  faithful,  or  was  made  up  of  the  faithful  and 
the  profane,  attracted  perhaps  by  the  reputation  and 
eloquence  of  the  orator?     We  shall  be  supplied  in  this 
case  with  certain  rules  by  sound  criticism.     If  the  lan- 
guage of  the  sermon  accords  with  that  of  the  catecheses, 
if  the  preacher  speaks  of  the  Eucharist  as  openly  as 
the  catechi;#,Mve   may  conclude  with  certainty  that 
the  auditory   was   wholly  Christian.     But  when  the 
preacher  premises,  like  Theodoret  in  his  first  dialogue, 
that  he  shall  express  himself  "in  mystic  and  obscure 
terms,  because  perhaps  he  is  speaking  before  persons 
uniniatiated;"  when  he  testifies,  like  St.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, "a  fear  of  discovering  the  mysteries  to  the  un- 
initiated;"— when  he   declares,  like   St.  Clement   of 
Alexandria,  that   he  will  "endeavour  to  say  certain 
tilings  under  a  veil,  and  to  shew  them,  while  he  is,  in  a 
manner,  silent  upon  them;"  or  when  he  uses  that  ex- 
pression, so  common  to  S.  Chrysostom  and  S.  Augustin: 
the  "initiated  understand  ?ne,   the  initiated  know  it;n 
or  finally,  when  he  seems  to  use  expressions  contradic- 
tory to  those  which  he  has  elsewhere  employed  before 
the  faithful ; — then,  and  in  aU  such  cases,  we  are  per- 
fectly assured  that  there  were  some  of  the  profane 
among  his  hearers. 


150  ANSWER  TO  THE 

V.  These  preliminary  observations  will  not  appear 
to  you,  sir,  as  I  love  to  believe,  inspired  by  prejudice; 
but  rather  dictated  by  the  spirit  of  impartial  criticism: 
and  if  you  are  desirous  of  acquiring  an  exact  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  primitive  doctrine  on  the 
sacrament  of  our  altars,  you  will  doubtless  seek  out  in 
the  first  place,  the  elementary  discourses  still  extant, 
for  the  instruction  of  neophytes;  then  the  ancient  litur- 
gies of  the  Christian  churches,  and  finally  the  dis- 
courses composed  exclusively  for  the  faithful.  As  to 
the  sermons  addressed  indiscriminately  to  Christians 
and  others,  as  also  those  works  intended  for  the  public ; 
knowing  that  the  discipline  of  the  secret  required  the 
mysteries  to  be  concealed,  you  will  not  think  of  seek- 
ing for  them  in  writings  of  that  kind:  and  when  you  see 
your  own  divines  attaching  themselves  by  choice  to 
such  works,  and  quoting  passages  from  them  with  self- 
complacency,  you  will  say  to  yourself:  "What  can  they 
mean -by  such  a  method?  Why  enquire  of  the  Holy 
Fathers  their  sentiments  on  the  Eucharist,  in  circum- 
stances in  which  they  were  obliged  to  efticeal  them  ? 
What  they  said  at  those  times  was  never  intended  by 
them  to  guide  us  in  this  matter.  To  persist  in  taking 
them  for  judges  contrary  to  their  known  intention,  is 
willfully  to  deceive  one's  self  and  others."  This  is  en- 
tirely my  opinion.  To  seek  to  discover  what  the  Fa- 
thers thought  on  the  Eucharist,  in  writings  where  they 
were  obliged  to  conceal  their  sentiments;  and  not  in 
those  where  duty  made  it  a  law  to  expose  them  openly, 
is  assuredly  following  a  method  totally  opposed  to  the 
dictates  of  common  sense.* 

•Here  observe  that  your  divines,  when  combatting  the  real  pre- 
sence, transubtantiation,  or  the  adoration  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
blessed  sacrament,  never  reason  from  the  catecheses,  the  liturgies, 
or  the  sermons  preached  before  the  faithful  exclusively.  At  most 
they  will  quote  a  few  insulated  phrases  from  them,  carefully  con- 
cealing what  proceeds  and  follows  them.  You  will  soon  see  more 
than  one  example  of  this. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  151 

VI.  Open  then  with  me  the  instructions  addressed 
to  the  neophytes;  read  again  the  extracts,  which  I  shall 
point  out  to  you;  and  remark,  if  you  please,  their  con- 
formity in  doctrine  with  that  of  the  liturgies.  The 
venerable  patriarch  St.  Cyril,  addressing  the  neophytes 
of  Jerusalem,  thus  expresses  himself:*  "As  then 
Christ,  speaking  of  the  bread,  declared  and  said,  this 
is  my  body,  who  shall  dare  doubt  it?  And  as  speak- 
ing of  the  wine,  he  positively  assured  us;  and  said,  this 
is  my  blood,  who  shall  doubt  it  and  say,  that  it  is  not 
his  blood  ?"(Who  ?  Mr.  Faber  would  reply  to  St.  Cyril, 
I  shall  doubt  it.)  "Formerly  at  Cana  in  Galilee,  Jesus 
Christ  changed  water  into  wine  by  his  will  only;  and 
shall  we  think  it  less  worthy  of  credit,  that  he  changed 
wine  into  his  blood  ?f ...  .Wherefore  with  all  confi- 
dence, let  us  take  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  For 
in  the  type  or  figure  of  bread  his  body  is  given  to  thee, 
and  in  the  type  or  figure  of  wine,  his  blood  is  given;  that 
so  being  made  partakers  of  the  body,  and  blood  of 
Christ,  you  may  become  one  body  and  one  blood  with 
him.  Thus  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  distri- 
buted in  our  members,  we  become  Christophori,  that 
is,  we  carry  Christ  with  us;  and  thus,  as  St.  Peter  says, 

*Catech.  Mystag.  iv.  No.  1  and  2. 

fAfter  quoting  thus  far,  the  Rector  stops  short,  and  says  in  a 
note,  page  68;  "I  have  selected  this  passage,  because,  so  far  as  I 
know,  it  is  the  strongest  which  can  be  produced  from  antiquity  in 
favour  of  the  Latin  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.'"  What  an  ap- 
pearance of  candour  !  How  could  it  fail  to  deceive  his  readers  r 
He  knows  that  the  very  contrary  to  what  he  says  is  the  fact.  For 
he  sees  in  the  same  page,  and  he  has  seen  in  my  book,  the  words  I 
have  cited  in  continuation  ;  and  yet  he  has  the  effrontery  to  sup- 
press them!  I  blush  to  record  so  unworthy  an  artifice.  How  can 
a  man  pretending  to  prove  to  his  countrymen  the  truth,  conceal  it 
thus  willfully  from  their  sight  ?  I  am  at  a  loss  for  expressions, 
which,  without  incurring  impoliteness,  might  inflict  well  merited 
correction  on  this  shameful  want  of  good  taith.  I  defy  any  one, 
and  above  all,  the  champion  of  figure  and  moral  change,  to  ex- 
press transubstantiation  more  clearly  than  St.  Cyril  doe9,  in  the 
words  Mr.  Faber  has  artfully  suppressed. 


]52  ANSWER  TO  THE 

we  are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature.*.... 
Wherefore  I  conjure  you,  my  brethren,  not  to  consi- 
der them  any  more  as  common  bread  and  wine,  since 
they  are  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  according 
to  his  words;  and  although  your  sense  might  suggest 
that  to  you,  let  faith  confirm  you.  Judge  not  of  the 
thing  by  your  taste,  but  by  faith  assure  yourself,  with- 
out the  least  doubt,  that  you  are  honoured  with  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  knowing,  and  of  this 
being  assured,  that  what  appears  to  you  bread,  is  not 
bread,  but  the  body  of  Christ,  although  the  taste  judges 
it  be  bread;  and  that  the  wine  which  you  see,  and  which 
has  the  taste  of  wine,  is  not  wine,  but  the  blood  of  Christ  ."f 
And  in  the  succeeding  catechesis,  where  he  describes 
the  liturgy  of  St.  James,  in  use  in  his  time  in  Jerusa- 
lem, St.  Cyril  prescribes  the  manner  of  receiving  the 
chalice,  in  these  words:  "After  having  thus  received 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  approach  to  the  chalice  of 
his  blood,  not  extending  your  hands,  but  bowing  in  an 
attitude  of  homage  and  adoration,  and  answering — 
Jlmen.^X 

VII.  St.  Ambrose  said  to  those  about  to  partake  of 
the  sacred  mysteries:  "Water  flowed  from  a  rock  for 
the  Jews;  but  for  you,  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self flows But  you  may  say:  I  see   somewhat 

else;  how  do  you  assert  that  I  shall  receive  the  body 

of  Christ? — This  remains  to  be  proved Moses 

held  a  rod;  he  cast  it  on  the  ground;  and  it  became  a 
serpent.  ...  If  now  the  blessing  of  men  was  powerful 
enough  to  change  nature,  what  must  we  not  say  of  the 
divine  consecration,  when  the  very  words  of  our  Lord 
operate?    For  that  sacrament,  which  you  receive,  is 

*Catech.  Myst.  No.  3. 

jCatcch.  Jlfyst.  No.  6-»9. 
•    \Catech.  Myst.  y.  No.  22.     This  adoration  is  the  same  which  we 
have  seen  in  the  liturgies  rendered  to  Jesus  Christ,  under  the  spe- 
cies, and  consequently  the  adoration  of  latria. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  153 

accomplished  by  the  word  of  Christ.*  The  word  of 
Christ,  which  could  draw  out  of  nothing  what  was  not, 
shall  it  not  be  able  to  change  the  things  that  are,  into 
that  ichich  they  were  iwt?  For  it  is  not  a  less  effect  of 
power,  to  give  new  existence  to  things,  than  to  change 
the  natures  tliat  icere.-f. . .  .  Was  the  order  of  nature 
followed,  when  Jesus  was  born  of  a  virgin?  Plainly, 
not.  Then  why  is  that  order  to  be  looked  for  here? 
It  was  the  true  flesh  of  Christ,  which  was  crucified, 
which  was  buried;  and  this  is  truly  the  sacrament  of 
his  flesh.  Our  Lord  himself  proclaims:  this  is  my  bo- 
dy. Before  the  benediction  of  the  celestial  words,  the 
bread  (species)  is  named;  after  the  consecration  the 
body  of  Christ  is  signified.  He  himself  calls  it  his 
blood.  Before  consecration  it  has  another  name;  af- 
terwards it  is  denominated  blood.  And  you  answer 
Jlmen,  that  is,  it  is  true.  What  the  mouth  speaks,  let 
the  internal  sense  confess:  what  the  words  intimate, 
let  the  affection  feel.  By  these  sacraments  Christ  feeds 
his  Church,  and  by  them  is  the  soul  strengthened.  It  is 
a  mystery,  whichj  you  ought  to  keep  carefully  within 
yourselves  ....  for  fear  of  communicating  it  to  those, 
who  are  unworthy  of  it,  and  of  publishing  its  secrets 
before  infidels,  by  too  great  levity  in  speaking.    There- 

*  According  to  Mr.  Faber  we  should  say:  Moses  knew  how  to 
change  physically  his  rod  into  a  serpent;  therefore  much  more  can 
Jesus  Christ  change  morally  the  bread  into  a  figure  of  his  body; 
which  signifies  in  plain  English — if  Moses  being  only  a  man  did 
what  was  greater,  Jesus  Christ,  a  fortiori,  can  do  what  is  less! 

flf  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ  could,  out  of  nothing,  produce  what 
before  did  not  exist,  why  should  it  not  be  able,  in- certain  circum- 
stances, to  substitute  for  the  common  use  of  bread,  a  distinction 
wholly  religious?  Thus  ought  those  to  reason  from  the  great  mi- 
racle of  the  creation,  who  in  the  Eucharistic  bread  admit  only 
the  moral  change  of  Mr.  Faber.  The  absurdity  of  such  reasoning 
is  palpable.  St.  Ambrose  afterwards  compares  the  miracle  of  the 
production  of  Christ's  body  in  the  sacrament,  with  that  of  his  birth 
from  a  virgin.  While  Mr.  Faber  admits  the  miracle  of  his  birth, 
will  he  inform  us  where  is  the  miracle  of  the  production  of  his 
body  in  the  sacrament?  This  real  and  physical  figure  was  certain- 
ly miraculous :  but  how  can  a  moral  and  figurative  production  be  so  ? 

14 


154  ANSWER  TO  THE 

fore  you  must  watch  with  great  care  ....  in  order  to 

keep the  fidelity  of  your  secret."* 

VIII.  St.  Gaudentius,  bishop  of  Brescia,  will  repeat 
to  you  what  he  said  to  his  newly  baptized  Christians: 
a  Among  all  those  things,  which  are  marked  out  in  the 
Book  of  Exodus,  on  the  celebration  of  the  Passover, 
we  shall  only  now  speak  of  such  as  cannot  be  explained 
before  the  catechumens,  but  which  it  is  nevertheless 
necessary  to  make  known  to  those,  who  have  been  newly 
baptized.  In  the  shadows  and  figures  of  the  ancient 
passover,  they  did  not  kill  one  lamb  only,  but  several, 
one  in  each  house;  because  one  alone  would  not  have 
sufficed  for  all  the  people,  and  because  this  mystery 
was  only  the  figure,  and  not  the  reality  of  our  Lord's 
passion.  For  the  figure  of  a  thing  is  not  the  reality, 
but  only  the  image  and  representation.  But  now,  when 
the  figure  has  ceased,  the  one  that  died  for  all,  immolated 
in  the  mystery  of  bread  and  wine,  gives  life  through  all 
the  Churches,  and  being  consecrated,  sanctifies  those  that 
consecrate.  This  is  the  flesh  of  the  Lamb,  this  is  his  blood: 
for  the  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven  said:  the  bread, 
which  I  shall  give  you,  is  my  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world. 
His  blood  is  rightly  expressed  by  the  species  of  wine, 
because  when  he  says  in  the  gospel,  /  am  the  true  vine, 
he  sufficiently  declares  all  wine,  which  is  offered  in 
the  figure  of  his  passion,  to  be  his  blood.  And  he  who 
is  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  all  natures,  who  produces 
bread  from  the  earth;  of  the  bread  makes  his  men 
proper  body,  (for  he  is  able,  and  he  promised  to  do  it;) 
and  who  of  water  made  wine,  and  of  wine  his  blood  .... 
It  is  the  pasch,  he  says,  that  is,  the  passover  of  the 
Lord;  think  not  that  earthly,  which  is  made  heavenly  by 
him,  who  passes  into  it,  and  has  made  it  his  body  and 
bloody     You  ought  not  then  to  reject  the  mysteries  of 

*  I  ask  again  in  this  place — where  is  the  mystery,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  keeping  any  secret  in  the  system  of  figure  and  moral 
change? 

t  In  what  St.  Gaudentius  here  tells  you,  you  look  in  vain,  I 
imagine,  for  the  moral  change  of  Mr.  Faber.  What  follows  is 
not  in  the  least,  more  like  it. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  155 

our  Saviour's  passion,  by  considering  this  flesh  as  if  it 
were  raw,  and  this  blood  as  if  it  were  raw,  as  the 
Jews  did,  nor  say  with  them:  how  can  he  give  us  his 
fiesh  to  eat?  Neither  ought  you  to  consider  this  sacra- 
ment as  any  thing  earthly;  but  rather  you  should  firm- 
ly believe  that  by  the  fire  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  this  sa- 
crament in  effect  is  what  the  Lord  assures  you  that  it  is. 
Believe  what  is  announced  to  thee;  because  what  thou 
receivest,  is  the  body  of  that  celestial  bread,  and  the  blood 
of  that  sacred  vine;*  for  when  he  delivered  consecrated 
bread  to  his  disciples  thus  he  said:  This  is  my  body; 
this  is  my  blood.  Let  us  believe  Him,  whose  faith 
we  profess;  for  truth  cannot  lie.  .  .  .Receive  then  with 
us,  with  all  the  holy  eagerness  of  your  heart,  this  sa- 
crifice of  the  passover  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
....  ichom  ice  believe  to  be  himself  present  in  his  stucra- 
ments."  Do  you  think,  sir,  that  the  Rector  of  Long 
Newton  ever  delivered  a  discourse  like  this  to  any 
he  prepared  for  the  sacrament?  No;  no  more  than  he 
did  like  those  of  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Cyril.  Such 
language  can  no  where  be  found  but  in  the  mouth  of 
a  Catholic  pastor. 

IX.  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  addressing  his  neo- 
phytes^ applies  to  the  Eucharist  the  precepts  of  Mo- 
ses on  the  celebration  of  the  passover.  uThelaw  puts 
a  staff  into  your  hand,  that  you  may  not  stagger  in 
your  soul,  when  you  shall  hear  of  the  death  of  God. 
Eat  the  body  much  more  without  any  hesitation,  and 
drink  the  blood  if  you  sigh  after  life.  Never  doubt  of 
what  you  hear  concerning  his  flesh;  be  not  scandalized 
at  his  passion.  Keep  firm,  aud  resolved  not  to  let 
yourself  be  shaken  by  the  discourse  of  your  adversa- 
ries, nor  carried  away  by  their  efforts;  with  your  foot 
upon  the  rock,  and  your  body  resting  on  the  column  of 

*  In  the  system  of  a  moral  change,  there  is  no  living  and  ecclesias- 
tical bread;  it  is  only  earthly,  terrestial,  and  inanimate. 
|  Second  Disc,  on  the  Passover,  Orat.  45. 


J  56  ANSWER  TO  THE 

temple,  remain  immoveable  on  the  pinnacle  which  you 
occupy."  How  strange  must  language  like  this  sound 
to  the  ear  of  Mr.  Faber?  What  can  these  precautions 
and  admonitions  signify?  What  hesitation  or  doubt 
could  arise  from  a  figurative  manducation?  Is  there 
any  thing  to  terrify  the  imagination  in  a  moral  change? 
Or  any  room  for  fear  at  the  sight  of  literal  bread? 

X.  It  would  be  too  long  to  quote  the  catechetical 
discourse  composed  by  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  in  forty 
chapters  for  the  instruction  of  his  neophytes:  I  will 
however  present  you  with  a  few  passages.  "When 
persons,  who  have  taken  poison,  wish  to  destroy  the 
mortal  violence  of  the  poison  by  a  remedy,  which  will 
counteract  it,  this  counter-poison  must  enter  into  their 
bodies,  as  the  poison  did  before  it,  that  it  may  diffuse 
and  insinuate  its  virtue  in  all  parts,  where  the  venom 
has  penetrated.  In  like  manner,  after  taking  the  fatal 
poison  of  sin,  which  destroys  our  nature,  it  is  absolute- 
ly necessary  for  us  to  take  a  remedy  to  re-establish 
what  was  corrupted  and  changed,  that  this  powerful 
antidote,  being  within  us,  may  drive  away  and  repair 
by  its  contrary  virtue,  the  evil  which  the  poison  caused 
in  our  bodies  by  its  malignity  and  contagion.  But  what 
is  this  medicine?  That  body,  which  was  shewn  to  be 
more  powerful  than  death,  and  was  the  beginning  of 
our  life;  and  which  could  not  otherwise  enter  into  our 
bodies  than  by  eating  and  drinking."*  The  body 
then  which  we  eat  is  that  which  suffered  death,  and 
triumphed  over  it  by  the  resurrection.  But  would  it 
not  suffice,  according  to  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  to  eat 
this  divine  body  by  faith?  Judge  for  yourself  from  the 
following  words  of  that  great  prelate:  "Now  we  must 
consider,  how  it  can  be,  that  one  body,  which  so  con- 
stantly, through  the  whole  world,  is  distributed  to  so 
many  thousands  of  the  faithful,  can  be  whole  in  each 
receiver,  and  itself  remain  whole."    A  question  totally 

•  Orat.    Catech.  ch-  3T. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  157 

absurd,  if  there  were  no  mandueation  but  by  faith. 
Surely  you  have  never  either  heard  or  read  it  in  your 
Church;  and  certainly  it  will  never  enter  Mr.  Faber's 
mind  to  propose  it  to  you.  "The  body  of  Christ,  by 
the  inhabitation  of  the  Word  of  God,  was  transmuted 
into  a  divine  dignity:  and  so  I  now  believe,  that  the 
bread,  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God,  is  transmuted 
into  the  body  of  Christ.  This  bread,  as  the  apostle 
says,  is  sanctified  by  the  Word  of  God  and  prayer,  not 
that,  like  food,  it  passes  into  his  body,  but  that  it  is 
instantly  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ,  agreeably  to 
what  he  said,  this  is  my  body  ....  By  the  dispensation 
of  his  grace;  he  enters,  by  his  flesh,  into  the  breasts  of 
the  faithful,  commixed  and  contempered  with  their 
bodies,  that  by  being  united  to  that  which  is  immortal, 
man  may  partake  of  incorruption.  This  is  the  gift 
whichvhe  bestows  upon  us,  when,  by  the  virtue  of 
the  benediction,  he  changes  or  transforms  into  his  body 
the  nature  of  the  visible  species.  Virtute  benediclionis 
in  illud  corpus  transelementatd  eorum  quce  apparent 
natural  These  are  expressions  which  would  appear 
to  me  very  strong,  if  I  beheld  in  the  Eucharistic  bread 
nothing  more  than  a  simple  transportation  from  the 
kitchen  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  from  the  commonest 
use,  a  religious  change  or  emblem.  In  truth,  Mr.  Faber 
must  be  greatly  scandalized  at  the  doctrine  taught  by 
the  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Church,  to  their  neophytes; 
or  rather  he  ought  to  abandon  his  own  and  adopt  theirs. 
XI.  Let  him  listen  attentively  with  us  to  the  instruc- 
tions of  St.  Chrysostom:  "The  statutes  of  sovereigns 
have  often  served  as  an  asylum  to  men  who  took 
refuge  near  them;  not  because  they  were  made  of 
brass,  but  because  they  represented  the  figure  of 
princes.  Thus  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  saved  the  Isra- 
elites, not  because  it  was  blood;  but  because  it  pre- 
figured the  blood  of  our  Saviour,  and  announced  his 
coming.     Now  therefore  if  the  enemy  perceived,  not 

the  blood  of  the  figurative  Lamb  marked  upon  our 
14* 


158  ANSWER  TO  THE 

doors,  but  the  blood  of  the  truth  shining  in  the  moutlis 
of  the  faithful,  he  would  much  more  speedily  depart 
from  them.  For  if  the  angel  passed  over  at  the  sight 
of  the  figure,  how  much  more  would  the  enemy  be 
terrified  at  the  sight  of  the  reality!  ....  Consider  with 
what  food  he  nourishes  and  fills  you:  he  himself  is  for 
us  the  substance  of  this  food."1'  (Therefore  the  sub- 
stance of  bread  is  no  longer  there.)  "He  himself  is 
our  nourishment.  For  as  a  tender  mother  moved  by 
natural  affection,  is  eager  to  support  her  child  with  all 
the  abundance  of  her  milk,  so  Jesus  Christ  feeds  with 
his  own  blood  those  whom  he  regenerates."  Could  the 
real  presence  be  described  or  rendered  by  any  com- 
parison more  touching  and  energetic* 

Let  us  then,  in  all  things,  obey  God.f  Let  us  not 
contradict  him,  even  when  what  he  tells  us  appears 
repugnant  to  our  ideas,  and  to  our  sight.  Let  his  word 
be  preferred  before  our  eyes  and  our  thoughts.  Let 
us  apply  this  principle  to  the  mysteries.  Let  us  not 
regard  what  is  exposed  to  our  sight,  but  rather  his 
word.  For  that  is  infallible,  whereas  our  senses  may 
deceive  us.  Since  then  the  word  has  said;  this  is  my 
body,  let  us  obey,  let  us  believe,  and  behold  this  body 
with  the  eyes  of  the  soul.  For  Jesus  Christ  has  given 
us  nothing  sensible;  but  under  sensible  things,  objects 
which  are  only  discernible  by  the  spirit.  For  if  you 
were  without  body,  the  gifts  which  he  has  given  you 
would  have  been  simple;  but  because  your  soul  is  uni- 
ted to  a  body;  under  sensible  things,  he  presents  you 
such  as  are  not  sensible.  How  many  persons  are  heard 
to  say:  I  would  willingly  behold  his  figure,  his  shape, 
his  attire!  But  thou  seest  him,  thou  touchest  him,  thou 
receivest  him  info  thy  breast.  Yet  thou  desirest  to  see 
his  garments.  He  gives  himself  to  thee,  not  to  be  look- 

*  Horn,  to  the  neophytes,  and  nearly  the  same  in  a  homily  on  St. 
John,  in  the  60th  to  the  people  of  Antioch. 
\  Horn.  QOth,  to  the  people  of  rfntioch. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  159 

cd  on  only,  but  to  be  touched,  to  be  eaten,  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  thy  breast ! . . . .  The  treason  of  Judas,  the  in- 
gratitude of  those   who  crucified  him  made  the  most 
holy  body  of  our  Lord  suffer  death;  and  thou,  dost 
thou  receive  him  with  a  soul  impure  and  defiled,  after 
receiving  from  him  so  many  favours?    For  not  con- 
tent with  becoming  man,  with  suffering  ignominies,  he 
would  also  mingle  himself  and  unite  himself  with  thee, 
so  that  thou  mightest  become  one  same  body  with  him, 
and  not  only  by  faith,  but  effectively  and  in  reality." 
Do  you  hear  any  thing  like  this,  sir,  in  your  churches? 
Do  your  preachers  use  any  such  language?  They  tell 
you  that  you  receive  Jesus  Christ  by  faith  only;  and  St. 
Chrysostom  teaches  that  we  receive  him  not  only  by 
faith,  but  in  effect  and  reality.   Listen  yet  farther,  I  pray 
you,  to  the  admirable  orator  of  Antioch.  "How  pure  then 
ought  he  to  be  who  partakes  of  such  a  sacrifice!  Ought 
not  the  hand  dividing  this  flesh  to  be  more  resplendent 
than  any  ray  of  the   sun?     The  mouth  which  is  filled 
with  this  spiritual  fire,  and  the  tongue  which  reddens 
with  this  most  tremedous  blood?     Think  by  what  an 
honour  thou  art  distinguished,  at  what  kind   of  table 
thou  art  made  a  partaker.     What  the  angels  tremble 
to  behold,  and  do  not  indeed  dare  freely  to  look  upon 
o  n  account  of  the  splendour  which  blazes  forth  from  it, 
with  this  we  are  fed,  to  this  ice  are  united,  and  are  made 
one  body  and  one  flesh  of  Christ.    Who  shall  speak  the 
power  of  the  Lord,  and  make  all  his  praises  heard? 
What  shepherd  feeds  his  sheep  with  his  own  blood? 
Shepherd  do  I  say?    There  are  even  many  mothers 
who  after  the  pains  of  child-birth,  deliver  their  chil- 
dren to  other  nurses.     But  this  he  would  not  permit; 
hut  feeds  us  himself  with  Ids  own  blood,  and  unites  us 
with  himself  in  every  thing." 

"He  who  did  these  things  at  that  time,  at  that  sup- 
per, is  the  same  who  performs  them  now.  We  hold  the 
places  of  his  ministers,  but  it  is  He  himself  who  sanc- 
tifies and  changes  them."   Here,  sir,  you  recognise  the 


1G0  ANSWER  TO  THE 

language  of  the  catecheses,  and  the  liturgies;  these  are 
in  the  same  terms  the  very  mysteries  which  they  con- 
cealed from  the  uninitiated:  therefore  there  were  none 
in  the  audience  whom  St.  Chrysostom  here  addressed. 
To  what  class  of  the  faithful  was  he  speaking  ?  Hear 
what  he  says: 

"I  say  these  things  to  those,  who  communicate,  and 

to  you,  who  minister And  thou,  O  laic,  when 

thou  beholdest  the  priest  offering,  do  not  consider  the 
priest  doing  this,  but  the  hand  of  Christ  invisibly  ex- 
tended. For  he  who  has  done  more,  that  is,  placed 
himself  upon  the  altar,  will  not  disdain  to  present  you 
his  body." 

We  have  none  of  those  dogmatical  instructions  ex- 
tant, which  undoubtedly  St.  Augustin  gave  to  his  neo- 
phytes between  their  baptism  and  their  communion;  uin 
order"  says  Hesychuis,  uto  make  them  sensible  of  the 
greatness  of  the  gifts  which  God  was  about  to  bestow  on 
tltem,  and  preserve  them  from  the  ignorance  of  which 
those  are  guilty,  who  partake  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  without  knowing  that  it  is  in  truth  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ"  We  have  several  of  his  discourses  to 
the  newly  baptized,  to  whom  lie  explains  the  disposi- 
tions, which  they  ought  to  bring  to  the  holy  table,  the 
moral  significations  or  relations  between  bread  and 
wine,  and  the  mystical  body  of  our  Lord.  Sometimes 
however  he  introduces  the  Eucharistic  dogmas;  and 
among  others,  in  the  following  passage:  "J  engaged  to 
deliver  a  discourse  to  you  who  have  been  baptized,  to 
explain  to  you  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  which  you 
now  behold,  and  of  .which  you  have  been  partakers  this 
last  night.  You  ought  to  understand  what  you  have 
received;  what  you  are  about  to  receive;  and  what 
you  ought  every  day  to  receive.  The  bread,  which 
you  behold  on  the  altar,  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God, 
is  the  body  of  Christ.  That  cup — that  which  the  cup 
contains,  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God,  is  the  blood 
of  Christ."    Here  we  have  the  doctrine  of  the  real 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  161 

presence,  which  St.  Augustin  recalls  to  the  minds  of  the 
neophytes,  who  must  already  have  known  it,  because 
they  had  communicated  on  the  preceding  night. 

XII.  The  quotations  you  have  read,  though  by  no 
means  numerous,  will  suffice.  One  thing  appears  to 
me  absolutely  incontestable: — in  the  primitive  age  there 
were  no  churches  without  catechumens,  and  conse- 
quently none  without  catechistical  instructions.  It  was 
necessary  to  teach  the  religion  to  those  adults,  who  sig- 
nified a  wish  to  embrace  it.  They  could  not  be  admit- 
ted to  baptism  and  the  other  sacraments,  until  they  had 
been  duly  instructed  in  their  greatness  and  importance. 
It  was  therefore  necessary  to  make  them  pass  through 
a  course  of  preparatory  proof,  to  be  assured  of  their 
progress,  dispositions  and  piety,  to  make  them  sensible 
of  the  necessity  of  grace,  and  describe  its  advantages, 
previous  to  opening  its  channels  in  their  favour.  These 
various  instructions  formed  what  we  call  catecheses.  It 
is  clear  that  it  could  no  more  be  permitted  to  commit 
them  to  writing  than  the  liturgies,  as  long  as  the  disci- 
pline of  the  secret  was  in  vigour.  Since  both  contained 
the  same  doctrine  and  the  same  mysteries,  the  danger  of 
betraying  them  would  have  been  the  same,  if  by  wri- 
ting they  had  been  exposed  to  the  risk  of  falling  into 
the  hands  of  infidels.  Thus  wTe  see  St.  Cyril  of  Je- 
rusalem take  the  precaution  of  placing  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  catecheses  an  admonition  of  the  most  se- 
rious character,  and  almost  like  that  with  which  the 
ancient  author  of  the  apostolic  constitutions  terminates 
his  liturgy  and  performance.  We  may  therefore  con- 
sider it  ascertain,  that  in  ancient  times  all  the  churches 
had  their  catecheses,  which  were  learned  and  explain- 
ed from  memory,  like  the  liturgies,  and  for  the  same 
length  of  time.  Of  those  written  in  the  fifth  century, 
very  few  have  come  down  to  us.  But  by  the  small 
number,  which  Providence  has  preserved  for  us,  we 
may  fairly  judge  of  all  the  rest;  in  the  same  manner  as 
we  judge  of  the  liturgies  lost,  by  those  still  in  our  pos»- 


Ig2  ANSWER  TO  THE 

session.  These,  that  remain  agree  with  each  other  in 
every  thing  essential,  and  must  equally  have  resembled 
those,  which  are  unknown  to  us.  For  whatever  was 
the  difference  of  language,  expressions  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  various  countries,  they  were  every  where 
employed  to  arrive  at  one  and  the  same  end,  the  one 
only  sacrifice  of  the  new  law.  This  reasoning  is  of  it- 
self applicable  to  the  catecheses,  which  having  been 
only  used  to  explain  the  Christian  doctrine,  must  ever 
have  traced  out  the  same  dogmas,  the  same  precepts, 
under  whatever  form,  and  in  what  language  soever 
they  were  expounded.  The  experience  of  our  own 
times  will  suffice  to  convince  us  of  this.  Collect  any 
number  of  Catholic  catechisms,  written  in  English  or 
Celtic,  French,  German,  or  Portuguese,  Spanish, 
Greek,  or  Latin,  or  any  idiom  spoken  upon  the  globe: 
compare  them  with  each  other,  and  you  will  find  per- 
fect uniformity  in  all  dogmatical  points.  Then  compare 
them  with  the  remains  of  antiquity;  and  you  will  find 
them  in  perfect  conformity  in  all  the  essential  articles. 
But  to  any  man  of  learning  it  will  be  unquestionable 
that  the  catecheses  of  S  S.  Cyril  and  Ambrose,  the  two 
Gregories,  S  S.  Gaudentius,  Chrysostom  and  Augus- 
tin,  were  the  same  in  every  thing  essential,  with  all 
that  were  known  to  the  primitive  Church.  It  is  incon- 
testable that  the  catecheses  of  the  first  three  centuries 
were  in  substance  conformable  to  those  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth,  in  whichwe  read  the  same  dogmas,  the  same 
doctrine  which  we  read  in  our  own — the  altar,  sacri- 
fice, presence  of  the  victim,  change  of  substance  and 
adoration.  Therefore  these  dogmas  were  transmitted 
to  the  Church  by  the  apostles;  and  consequently  they 
were  revealed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  a  word, 
all  Catholic  catechisms  agree  on  the  Eucharistic  dogmas 
with  those  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries.  But  these 
latter  necessarily  agreed  on  the  same  points  with  the 
catechisms  of  the  first  three  centuries.  Therefore  ours 
agree  equally  with  them;  and  our  doctrine  on  the  Eu- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  163 

charist  is  primitive  and  apostolical.  Or  again;  since 
the  Rector  is  so  fond  of  the  syllogistic  form — the  cate- 
cheses  of  the  first  three  centuries  certainly  agreed  with 
those  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  on  the  subject  of  the  Eu- 
charist. But  ours  agree  with  these  latter  on  this 
subject.  Therefore  ours  agree  with  the  primitive  cate- 
cheses.  The  major  and  minor  are  incontestable,  after 
all  that  I  have  thus  far  written  upon  the  Eucharist:  and 
the  consequence  results  inevitably  from  the  well-known 
axiom:  Quce  sunt  eadem  uni  tertio,  sunt  eadem  inter  se. 
Therefore  the  argument  is  incontestable. 

XIII.  To  the  authority  of  the  catecheses,  and  to 
the  arguments,  which  they  had  suggested  to  me,  in  my 
Discussion  Jlmicale,  what  reply  does  Mr.  Faber  make? 
The  same  which  he  had  made  to  me  on  the  discipline 
of  the  secret,  and  on  the  liturgies;  little,  or  rather  noth- 
ing, that  can  deserve  notice.  I  had  asked,  and  I  here 
ask  again,  how  the  Church  could  have  prescribed 
such  rigorous  secrecy  on  a  thing  so  simple  as  a  figura- 
tive manducation?  I  had  asked,  and  I  here  repeat  the 
demand,  how  the  Church,  if  she  only  admitted  a  moral 
change  in  the  bread  and  wine,  came  to  invoke  in  her 
liturgies  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  obla- 
tions, "in  order  to  change  them  and  transform  them  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ?*"  How  it  was 
that  she  commanded  the  faithful  to  adore  Him  in  the 
sacrament,  particularly  at  the  moment  of  the  Holy 
Communion?  I  had  asked,  and  I  now  ask  again,  how 
the  Fathers,  if  they  beheld  nothing  in  the  bread  but 
some  type,  or  emblem,  or  sign  of  Jesus  Christ  absent, 
could  have  said  in  their  instructions  to  those  newly 
baptized,  that  what  was  bread  before  consecration, 
became  after  it  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ;  that  it  was 
to  be  received  as  such,  whatever  it  might  appear  to 
the  senses;  because  it  is  just  and  reasonable  to  depend 
on  the  word  of  the  God-man,  rather  than  on  a  judgment 
founded  on  the  testimony  of  the  sight  and  taste?  I 
defied  and  I  again  defy  any  one  to  produce  a  single 


164  ANSWER  TO  THE 

dogmatical  instruction   from  the  first  five  centuries, 
in  which  the  catechist  teaches  the  newly-baptized,  that 
after  the  consecration,  the  bread  and  wine   remain 
essentially  what  they  were  before;  that  the  invocations 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  have  no  other  object  but  to  obtain 
a  moral  change  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  to  transfer 
them  from  common  use  to  a  religious  destination;  or 
that  bread  and  wine,  which  were  figures  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Old  Testament,  are 
so  in  the  same  sense  in  the  New;  or  that  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ,  being  in  heaven,  cannot  be  here  below; 
and  that  consequently  the   adoration   paid   to   Jesus 
Christ  in  his  sacrament  would  be  gross  idolatry.     To 
all  these  demands,  what  has  Mr.  Faber  replied?     He 
appears  not  even  to  have  received  them;  he  takes  no 
notice  of  them,  but  loses  himself  in  conjectures  quite 
foreign   to  my   queries.     He  endeavours  to  counter- 
act the   incontestable  proofs  of  the  secret,  the  litur- 
gies and  the  catecheses,  by  certain  testimonies  from 
the  Fathers,  which  he  might  have  multiplied  without 
any  more  advancing  his  cause,  if  he  had  been  inclined 
to  draw  from  the  source  which  I  had  myself  pointed 
out  to  him.     These  passages  are  for  the  most  part, 
taken  from  writings  published  against  the  Jews  and 
Pagans,  or  from  homilies  pronounced  before  the  unini- 
tiated.    In  such  circumstances,  the  Fathers  not  being 
allowed  to  express  themselves  clearly,  considered  the 
eucharistic  bread    and  wine  in  their  relation  to  the 
senses,  and  denominated  them  types,  emblems,  images, 
allegories,  figures,  and  sacraments,  without  adding  that 
these  visible  appearances  covered  the  body  and  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ;  which  would  have  been  at  once  dis- 
covering and  betraying  the  secret* 

•On  this  occasion  the  Rector  does  me  the  honour  to  express 
himself  as  follows:  "I  have  rarely  met  with  a  more  singular  ex- 
periment upon  the  presumed  obtuse  intellect  of  a  simple  laic, 
than  this  which  has  been  adventured  by  the  learned  Bishop  of 
Aire.     An  acknowledged  symbol  or  image  of  a  thing,  if  we  may 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  165 

XIV.  I  will  afford  you,  sir,  satisfactory  proof  of 
what  1  advance,  by  giving  you  to  understand  more  ex- 
actly than  Mr.  Faber  has  done,  the  principal  pas- 
sages quoted  by  him.  The  two  first  which  I  shall 
bring  forward,  are  from  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  Theodoret,  who  both  give  us  notice  that  they  are 
obliged  to  conceal  their  sentiments  on  the  subject  of 
the  mysteries.  Since  their  pens  were  guided  by  this 
principle,  you  will  doubtless  conceive,  sir,  that  it 
would  be  unreasonable  to  look  in  their  writings,  for  a 
clearness  of  expression  on  the  eucharistic  dogmas, 
which  they  themselves  inform  us  that  they  professedly 
avoid.* 

credit  a  very  able  divine  of  the  Latin  Church,  may  be  at  once  both 
a  symbol  of  the  thing  in  question,  and  yet  the  identical  thing  itself  whick 
it  is  employed  to  symbolize!  pp.  131  and  132.  To  imagine,  that  a  man 
of  the  Bishop's  superiour  attainments  could  himself  admit  such  a 
tissue  of  rhetorical  absurdities,  ....  is  perfectly  out  of  the  ques- 
tion." P.  134.  Undoubtedly  these  are  absurdities  palpable 
enough ;  and  such  as  I  could  not  have  imagined  entering  into  any 
man's  head.  The  Rector  would  make  it  appear  that  he  has  seen 
them  in  my  book.  I  can  assure  you,  on  my  side,  that  such  are  only 
to  be  found  in  77k  Difficulties  of  Romanism.  That  Mr.  Faber 
should  have  been  able  to  conceive  them,  and  pursue  them  through 
four  consecutive  pages  of  dulness,  is  a  feat  of  strength,  of  which 
I  should  not  have  imagined  him  capable,  or  a  delirious  illusion  of 
which  I  charitably  lament  to  find  him  susceptible. 

•Tertullian  is  of  this  number:  I  have  quoted  testimonies  enough 
from  him  on  the  secret  of  the  eucharistic  mysteries.  St.  Cyprian, 
in  the  passage  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Faber,  says  nothing  more 
than  we  ourselvcS  would  say.  It  is  astonishing  to  see  the  Rector 
claiming  for  his  side  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem;  such  boldness  is  per- 
fectly astounding.  It  is  true,  however,  that  at  page  114  he  quotes 
those  words  of  his  which  I  reproached  him  with  suppressing  iu 
the  place,  where  candour  and  equity  called  upon  him  to  bring 
them  forward.  For  the  rest,  he  is  satisfied  at  p.  114,  that  they 
would  appear  indeed  to  establish  transubstantiation.  Having 
said  this,  he  quits  the  perplexing  St.  Cyril,  and  goes  off  to  another 
more  accommodating. 


15 


166  ANSWER  TO  THE 


ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

XV.  "I  pass  over  several  things,  fearing  to  commit 
to  writing  what  I  was  afraid  to  say,  and  because  I 
fear  that  those  who  may  read  these  writings,  may 
take  my  words  in  a  wrong  sense,  and  fall  into  error, 
and  I  may  be  accused,  according  to  the  proverb,  of 
putting  a  sword  into  the  hands  of  children  for  their 

destruction There  are  certain  things  which  the 

Holy  Scriptures  will  shew  me,  although  they  are  not 
openly  expressed.  There  are  others,  upon  which 
they  will  insist.  There  are  others  in  fine,  which  they 
will  only  touch  upon  slightly:  but  they  will  endeavour 
to  speak  them,  while  they  conceal  them,  and  to  shew 
them  while  they  keep  silence."* 

What  is  most  remarkable  in  the  quotations  here 
opposed  to  us  by  Mr.  Faber,  is  the  rare  and  particular 
candour,  which  has  presided  over  their  arrangement. 
He  presents  them  in  a  line,  one  immediately  following 
the  other.  It  is  true,  the  references  at  the  end  of  each, 
might  sufficiently  admonish  the  attentive  and  practised 
reader.  But  the  greater  portion  not  being  of  this  des- 
cription, must  imagine  that  the  texts  are  connected, 
and  all  come  together  in  the  originals.  Yet  this  is  by 
no  means  the  case.  Between  the  first  and  second,  I 
reckon  ten  lines:  between  the  second  and  third,  fifty 
pages;  between  the  third  and  fourth,  a  page  and  a 
half.  Here  then  we  have  sentences  detached  from 
their  proper  places,  and  artfully  reported  side  by  side; 
so  as  to  present  a  meaning  sufficiently  connected  and 
natural.  What  makes  the  allusion  pass  off  still  better 
is  that  the  sentences  are  found  connected  by  the  con- 
junctive adverbs  for  or  then,  as  if  they  were  proof 
or  consequence  of  the  preceding  phrase.  No  doubt 
you  would  have  suppressed  them.     Mr.  Faber  has 

*  Strom,  liber  1. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  167 

judged  it  more  useful  to  preserve  them:  his  intention  is 
manifest.  In  the  first  text,  he  translates  autem  by 
therefore;  in  the  second,  St.  Clement  says,  "Nc  quis 
vero  alienum  existimet  quod  nos  sanguinem  Domini  lac 
allegoric^  dicamus,  annonvinum  quoque  allegoric^  dici- 
tur?  Qui  lavat  inquit,  in  vino  vestem  suam,  ct  in  san- 
guine uvce  vestimentum suum"  (Gen.  49.)  Mr.  Faber 
translates  thus:  "Nor  let  any  one  think  that  we  speak 
strangely,  when  we  say,  that  milk  is  allegorically 
called  the  blood  of  the  Lord:  for  is  not  wine  like- 
wise allegorically  called  by  the  very  same  ap- 
pellation?" p.  75.  And  I  translate  word  for  word  as 
follows:  "But  lest  any  one  should  think  it  strange  that 
we  call  the  blood  of  the  Lord  allegorically  milk,  is  it 
not  also  allegorically  called  wine?  'Who  washeth,' 
it  says,  'his  robe  in  wine,  and  his  garment  in  the  blood 
of  the  grape.'  "  Ask  the  Rector,  if  you  please,  why 
he  abruptly  cuts  the  passage  short,  by  retrenching  the 
proof  from  Genesis.  I  will  give  you  the  reason  pre- 
sently. "The  scripture  then,"  continues  he  fiercely, 
as  if  these  two  passages  followed  each  other  connect- 
edly, although  they  are  fifty  pages  asunder!  St.  Cle- 
ment proves  by  the  text  from  Genesis  that  wine  was 
there  a  figure  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  Mr.  Faber, 
who,  by  the  expression,  "the  scripture  then,"  leaves 
us  to  conclude  that  it  was  in  the  scripture,  and 
perhaps  even  in  the  New  Testament,  makes  it  appear 
as  if  he  did  not  see  the  text  from  Genesis.  Let  us 
leave  him  to  argue  at  his  ease,  with  his  suppressions 
and  conjunctions;  and  let  us  conclude  from  the  very 
passage  objected  by  him  that  wine  having  been  in  the 
Old  Testament  a  figure  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
was  to  become  really  his  blood  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  has  fulfilled  and  realized  the  figures  of  the  Old. 
You  have  seen  Mr.  Faber  suppressing  the  text  from 
Genesis:  now  you  shall  see  him  making  us  some 
amends  by  shewing  in  the  fourth  quotation  that  he 
knows  equally  well  how  to  add  as  well  as  suppress, 


168  ANSWER  TO  THE 

when  it  will  serve  his  purpose,  as  in  these  words;  "the 
consecrated  liquor  therefore"  consecrated,  and  therefore 
are  his  own  exclusively.  He  has  not  taken  them  from 
St.  Clement,  but  from  his  own  head.  I  cannot  help 
observing  that  all  this  petty  contrivance  to  adapt  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  to  his  own  ends,  discovers  a 
deep  fund  of  cunning  in  the  author,  which  will  cause 
less  surprise  in  England  than  elsewhere. 

THEODORET. 

XVI.  In  his  first  dialogue,  he  introduces  Orthodoxus 
expressing  himself  as  follows:  "Answer  me,  if  you 
please,  in  mystical  and  obscure  words:  for  perhaps 
there  are  persons,  here  who  are  not  initiated  in  the  mys- 
teries. Eranistes:  I  shall  understand  you,  and  answer 
you  in  the  same  vie\f ."  And  further  on,  the  same 
character  says:  "You  have  clearly  proved  what  you 
desired,  though  in  mystical  words." 
The  Rector  of  Long  Newton  seems  never  able  to  re- 
present things  as  they  really  are;  either  he  suppresses, 
or  he  adds,  or  gives  a  sense  to  terms  which  they 
cannot  have.  He  has  passed  over  in  silence  the  above 
extract  from  the  first  dialogue,  and  half  of  what  you 
shall  now  read  from  the  second. — "Eranistes:  Tell 
me  therefore;  what  do  you  call  the  gift  that  is  afforded 
before  the  priest's  invocation?  Orthodoxus:  This  must 
not  be  said  openly;  for  some  may  be  present  who  are 
not  initiated.  Eran:  Answer  then,  in  hidden  terms. 
Orth:  We  call  it  an  aliment  made  of  certain  grains. 
Eran:  And  how  do  you  call  the  other  symbol?  Orth: 
We  give  it  a  name  that  denotes  a  certain  beverage.* 
Eran:  And  after  the  consecration  what  are  they  called? 
Orth.  The  body  of  Christ,  and  the  blood  of  Christ. 

*  Do  you  remember,  sir,  that  at  p.  115  the  Rector  maintains,  in 
spite  of  what  he  quotes  from  St.  Cyril,  that  the  change  of  substance 
had  nothing  to  do  in  the  mysteries:  not  even  as  the  very  smallest 
and  least  important  secret?" 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  169 

Eran:  And  you  believe,  that  you  partake  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ?  Ortk.  So  I  believe.  Eran:  As 
the  symbols  then  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  were 
different  before  the  consecration  of  the  priest,  and 
after  that  consecration  are  changed;  in  the  same  man- 
ner we  (Eutychians)  say  that  the  body  of  Christ  after 
his  ascension,  was  changed  into  the  divine  essence. 
Orth:  Thou  art  taken  in  thy  own  snare;  for,  after  the 
consecration,  the  mystical  symbols  lose  not  their  proper 
nature:  they  remain  in  the  shape  and  form  of  the  for- 
mer substance,  to  be  seen,  and  to  be  felt,  as  before;  but 
they  are  understood  to  be  what  they  have  [been  made; 
this  they  are  believed  to  be;  and  as  such  they  are 
adored."*     The  reasoning  of   Orthodoxits  is  not  that 

■In  this  passage  three  small  artifices  are  to  be  charged  on  Mr. 
Faber.  1st,  he  carefully  avoids  quoting  the  words  of  the  first  dia- 
logue, and  those  of  the  second,  which  shew  the  embarrassment  of 
Theodoret.  and  his  fear  of  betraying  the  secret,  as  also  the  agree- 
ment between  the  two  speakers,  to  express  themselves  in  hidden 
term9.  He  lets  no  part  of  them  appear;  but  begins  his  quotation 
from  the  two  final  sentences.  2dly,  he  makes  Theodoret  say 
that  the  bread  and  wine  retain  after  consecration,  their  original 
substance;  page  140.  Original  is  here  unworthily  substituted  by 
the  candid  and  impartial  bachelor  of  divinity.  Theodoret  says 
former  (toporipacr) ;  a  decisive  Word,  which  evidently  supposes 
that  a  second  substance  has  taken  the  place  of  the  first,  and  thus 
authorises  the  more  intelligible  translation  which  I  have  given,  and 
of  which  the  Greek  text  is  perfectly  susceptible.  3dly,  instead  of 
as  such  they  are  adored,  the  bachelor  translates,  venerated;  without 
considering  that  the  liturgies,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustin,  Sac.  tell 
us  that  after  the  consecration,  they  paid  the  supreme  adoration  of 
lalria,  and  therefore  adored  in  the  full  energy  of  the  word.  And 
what  did  they  adore?  Certainly  not  the  visible  species,  nor  the 
substance  of  bread;  but  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  concealed  under 
the  visible  qualities  of  bread. 

It  is  amusing  enough  to  compare  in  this  place  Mr.  Faber  and 
Dr.  Cosin.  We  cannot  but  admire  the  dexterity  of  both.  Dr. 
Cosin  more  ready  in  expedients,  suppresses  without  ceremony  the 
words,  as  such  they  are  adored:  but  Mr.  Faber  more  considerate, 
instead  of  the  word  which  annoys  him,  puts  another  which  quite 
alters  the  sense.  On  which  I  have  but  one  simple  question  to  put 
to  you;  which  of  these  two  worthies  appears  to  you  to  exhibit  the 
greater  candour  and  good  faith? 

15* 


170  ANSWER  TO  THE 

attributed  to  him  by  the  Rector.     Thou  art  taken, 
says  he,  in  thy  own  snare:  there  is  certainly  a  change 
in  the  bread,  but  not  in  its  sensible  and  outward  nature: 
for  it  retains  its  figure,  its  form,  colour,  taste,  and  all 
the  qualities  of  its  former  substance  (tfporspas.)     Yet 
we  conceive  it  to  have  become  what  it  is  made,  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  which  I  told  thee  that  we  par- 
take, and  which  consequently  is  essentially  there  pre- 
sent: we  believe  it  to  be  there  present,  though  invisible, 
and  as   such   we  adore  it.     This  answer  demolishes 
Eutychianism  triumphantly.     It  shews  that  the  bread 
is  changed,  not  into  the  divinity,  as  Eranistes  imagined; 
but  from  its  corporeal  substance  into  the  substance  of 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ:  in  a  word,  both  interlocutors 
admitted  a  real  change  in  the  Eucharist;    Orthodoxies, 
that  of  bread  into  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  since  oth- 
erwise he  could  not  have  partaken  of  that  body  in  the 
sacrament;  Eranistes,  that  of  bread  into  the  divinity, 
because  as  an  Eutychian  he  acknowledged  that  only 
in  Jesus  Christ,  since  his  human  nature  had  been  ab- 
sorbed by  his  divine  nature  after  his  ascension. 

I  allow,  without  difficulty,  Orthodoxies  and  Eranis- 
tes mutually  kept  their  agreement.  They  had  engaged 
to  make  use  of  obscure  expressions,  and  such  their 
expressions  are  at  first  sight.  But  with  some  atten  - 
tion,  those  who  are  initiated  into  the  mysteries,  as 
they  both  were,  can  penetrate  the  hidden  sense  of  their 
dialogues.  Mr.  Faber,  who  is  not  thus  initiated,  has 
read  all,  heard  all,  and  understood  all  in  a  wrong 
sense;  like  those  who  obstinately  remained  among  the 
catechumens,  who  neither  knew  the  motives,  nor  the 
objects  of  the  discipline  of  the  secret,  and  who  in  con- 
sequence had  never  assisted  at  the  liturgy,  nor  the  mys- 
tagogic  catecheses,  nor  at  the  sermons  delivered  be- 
fore the  faithful  exclusively. 

Besides,  the  metaphysics  of  former  days  had  a  lan- 
guage now  no  longer  in  use.  For  example,  they  at- 
tach to  the  words  natura,  substantia,  stfia,  <pu<f»s,  a  dif- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  171 

ferent  sense  from  what  we  give  to  substance  and  iia- 
ture.  St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  speaking  of  a  body  be- 
coming glorious,  says:  ut  hoc  sic  mutassc  substanliam, 
no)i  mutdsse  personam;  and  St.  Augustin  alluding  to 
the  fall  of  man,  says:  per  iniquitatem  homo  lapsus  est  a 
substantia  in  qua  factus  est.  We  might  further  quote 
Aristotle  on  the  word  substance,  as  for  the  word  nature; 
also  Cicero,  Virgil  and  Horace,  who  often  use  it  for 
the  qualities  and  properties  of  beings.  -'Substance" 
says  Tertullian,  "is  one  thing,  the  nature  of  substance 
is  another.  Stone  andiron  are  substances,  their  hard- 
ness is  the  nature  of  their  substance:  aliud  est  substantia, 
aliud  natvra  substantia.  Substantia  est  lapis,  ferritin; 
duritia  lapidis  ct  Jerri  natura  substantia."  (Lib.  de 
anima,  c.  32.)  Mr.  Faber  presents  these  words  to  his 
readers  in  their  modern  signification.  But,  if  you 
please,  let  us  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  celebrated 
Leibnitz.  "Gelasius,  the  Roman  pontiff,  gives  us  to 
understand  that  the  bread  is  changed  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  whilst  the  nature  of  the  bread  remains;  he 
means  its  qualities  or  accidents.  For  in  those  days 
they  did  not  express  themselves  with  perfect  preci- 
sion and  metaphysical  accuracy.  In  the  same  sense 
Theoderet  says,  that  in  this  change,  which  he  calls 
fxeraboXr],  the  mystic  symbols  are  not  deprived  of  their 
proper  nature."  (Sys.  Theol.  p.  227.)  The  Orthodox- 
ies of  Theodoret  explains  himself  in  the  same  terms: 
"The  bread  and  wine  lose  not  their  proper  nature; 
they  retain  their  form,  figure,  and  visible  and  palpable 
qualities."  The  explanation  of  the  word  nature  once 
admitted,  all  difficulty  vanishes  in  the  passages  from 
Gelasius  and  Theodorus  quoted  by  the  Rector.  There 
only  remains  that  kind  of  mysterious  cloud  thrown  in- 
tentionally, and  by  mutual  consent,  between  Orthodox- 
us  and  Eranistes.  Far  from  being  surprised  at  meet- 
ing with  this  slight  obscurity;  it  would  be  surprising  in- 
deed if  it  were  not  met  with,  after  they  had  given  no- 
tice that  they  should  thus  obscure  their  discourse,  in 


172  ANSWER  TO  THE 

order  to  conceal  their  mysteries  from  the  uninitiated. 
What  appears  to  me  here  exceedingly  unreasonable, 
and  I  may  even  say  absurd,  is  to  pretend  in  our  days 
to  discover  clearly  the  doctrine  of  an  author  by  those 
dialogues,  in  which  he  has  forewarned  us  that  he  could 
only  declare  it  under  hidden  terms. 

ST.  CHRYSOSTOM  AND  ST.  AUGUSTIN. 

XVII.  These,  as  Casaubon  acknowledges,  have 
more  than  forty  times  declared  their  embarrassment 
in  explaining  the  Eucharist  in  presence  of  the  uniniti- 
ated. Every  time  that  they  spoke  to  the  faithful  alone, 
they  expressed  themselves  with  energy  in  the  Catholic 
sense.  After  what  I  reported  in  my  Discussion  Ami- 
cule  from  these  two  great  prelates,  I  should  not  have 
expected  to  find  them  among  the  authorities  opposed  to 
me  by  Mr.  Faber.  I  cannot  conceive  that  he  could 
persuade  himself  that  they  were  not  both  against  him; 
since  to  give  them  an  Anglican  appearance,  he  has 
been  obliged  to  mutilate  quotations,  suppress  phrases 
before  and  after,  and  mangle  the  passages  unmerciful- 
ly. I  am  aware  that  I  here  bring  against  him  a  seri- 
ous charge:  but  it  is  one  most  easy  to  establish.  I 
have  only  to  restore  the  mutilated  passages  to  their 
integrity. 

At  page  76  Mr.  Faber  quotes  a  passage  from  the 
discourse  of  St.  Chrysostom  on  the  treason  of  Judas; 
and  like  myself  he  read  in  the  same  discourse  the  fol- 
lowing words,  which  he  has  carefully  withheld  from 
his  readers;  "When  I  hear  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
mentioned,  I  understand  what  is  said  in  one  way,  and 
the  infidel  in  another Although  these  unbeliev- 
ers hear  it  spoken  of,  it  does  not  seem  as  if  they  heard 
it.  But  the  faithful  possess  the  intelligence  given  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  know  the  virtue  and  the  power  of 

the  tilings  there  concealed He  that  was  present  at 

the  last  supper,  is  the  same  that  is  now  present  and 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  173 

consecrates  our  feast.  For  it  is  not  man  who  makes 
the  things  lying  on  the  altar  become  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ;  but  that  Christ  who  was  crucified  for  us. 
....  He  said:  This  is  my  body:  these  words  make  the 
change."  We  find  the  same  train  of  thought  in  his 
83d  homily  on  St.  Matthew,  aWe  behold  the  order 
of  ministers;  but  the  sanctifier  and  changer  of  them  is 
himself."*  Would  Mr.  Faber  tell  us  that  this  change 
is  no  more  than  a  moral  change?  Would  the  inter- 
vention of  Jesus  Christ  be  necessary  to  operate  a 
mere  moral  change?  Would  not  the  power  of  his 
ministers  suffice  to  give  a  pious  destination  to  bread 
and  wine?  Does  not  Mr.  Faber  do  this  by  himself 
when  he  administers  the  sacrament  to  his  parishioners? 
But  is  not  his  moral  change  incompatible  again  with 
the  following  passages? 

"Consider,  O  man?  the  royal  table  is  spread.  The 
angels  serve  it:  the  King  himself  is  there  present:  and 
dost  thou  remain  in  stupid  indifference!  Thy  gar- 
ments are  defiled,  and  thou  dost  not  grieve!  But  they 
are  pure,  you  will  say.  Then  adore  and  communicate:" 
(Horn.  45.)   "This  body  lying  in  the  manger,  the  wise 

men  reverenced They  came  from  distant  lands, 

and  adored  Him  with  great  fear  and  trembling 

Thou  dost  not  see  him  in  the  manger,  but  on  the  altar. 
....  Let  us  then  shew  him  a  veneration  far  above 
that  of  those  barbarians."  (Horn.  24.)  "Go  then  to 
Bethlehem,  to  the  house  of  spiritual  bread  ....  pro- 

*  I  really  pity  your  Bachelor  of  Divinity  when  I  find  him  pick- 
ing out  these  words;  "for  the  Eucharist  is  a  spiritual  food,"  in  order 
to  turn  St.  Chrysostom  against  us,  and  against  himself.  Why  did 
he  not  also  .select  the  following:  "Go  then  to  Bethlehem,  to  the 
house  of  spiritual  bread?"  These  expressions  are  quite  Catholic; 
we  make  use  of  them  every  day,  and  in  the  mouth  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tom they  have  the  same  sense  as  in  ours:  they  mean  that  the  spiri- 
tualized body  of  our  Saviour  is  communicated  to  us  to  be  the  nou- 
rishment, not  of  our  bodies,  but  of  our  souls,  ut  anima  it  Deo  sagi- 
netur,  says  Tertullian.  Therefore  this  nourishment  is  a  spiritual 
food. 


174  ANSWER  TO  THE 

vided  however  that  you  approach  to  adore,  and  not  to 

trample  under  foot  the  Son  of  God take  care  not 

to  resemble  Herod,  and  say  like  him,  "tliat  I  also  may 

go  and  adore  Him;  and  go  not  to  put  him  to  death 

"Let  us  tremble  to  appear  as  supplicants  and  adorers, 
and  yet  to  shew  ourselves  the  contrary  by  our  works." 
(Horn.  7  on  St.  Matt.)  I  content  myself  with  quoting 
these  few  passages,  because  they  can  leave  no  doubt 
in  any  impartial  mind  on  the  sentiments  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tom,  and  of  the  Church.  The  adoration  alone,  so  for- 
cibly required  by  the  eloquent  patriarch,  utterly  de- 
molishes the  opinion  of  a  figurative  presence,  or  a  moral 
change;  demonstrates  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
and  by  a  further  consequence,  that  of  transubstan- 
tiation. 

XVIII.  I  am  perfectly  astonished  at  the  intrepidity 
of  Mr.  Faber.  He  brings  against  me  one  of  the  dis- 
courses of  St.  Augustin,  which  I  quoted  in  proof  of  our 
doctrines.  And  how  does  he  set  about  it?  Still  by 
the  help  of  the  same  stratagem,  which  assuredly  he 
would  find  most  disreputable  in  any  other.  He  selects 
two  or  three  passages,  and  exhibits  them  detached 
from  those  which  precede  and  follow.  United  in 
their  proper  order,  they  exclude  the  actual  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England;  separately,  they  might  ap- 
pear to  favour  it.  Let  us  place  the  passages  together, 
and  the  illusion  produced  by  their  insulated  appear- 
ance, will  at  once  vanish.  You  have  seen  the  same 
thing  in  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  St.  Chrysostom; 
you  shall  now  witness  it  in  St.  Augustin.  uBut  how 
adore  the  earth,  when  the  Scripture  says  positively, 
the  Lord  thy  God  shalt  thou  adore?  and  yet  it  says 
here,  adore  his  footstool?*  But  in  explaining  to  me 
what  his  footstool  is,  he  says:  the  earth  is  my  footstooV 
(Isaias  lxvi.  v.  1.)  "I  hesitate  in  uncertainty;  I  fear  to 
adore  the  earth,  lest  I  find  myself  condemned  by  Him 

•  In  Psalm  xcviii. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  175 

who  created  the   earth   and   the  heavens.     On  the 
other  hand,  I  fear,  if  I  do  not  adore  the  footstool  of  my 
God,  because  the  psalm  says  to  me,  adore  his  footstool- 
....  In   this  perplexity,  I  turn  towards  Christ,  be- 
cause it  is  He  whom  I  seek  here,  and  I   find  in  what 
manner  the  earth  is  adored  without  impiety,  and   how 
his  footstool  is  adored  without  impiety.     For  he  took 
upon  him  earth  from  the  earth;  because  flesh  is  from 
the  earth,  and  he  took  flesh  from  the  flesh  of  Mary: 
and  because  he  here  walked  in   this   flesh,  even  this 
same  flesh   he  gave   to  us   to  eat  for  our   salvation; 
but  no  one  eateth  this  flesh,  without  having  first  ador- 
ed it.     By   this   we  discover   how   the   footstool   of 
the  Lord  is  adored;  and  not  only  we  do  not  sin  by 
adoring,   but   we  even  sin  by  not   adoring  it.      But 
is  it  the  flesh  that  quickeneth?     The  Lord  even,   in 
exalting  this  earth  to  us,  informs  us,  that  it  is  the  spirit 
that  quickeiieth,    and  that  the  flesh  prqfitcth  nothing. 
Wherefore  in  abasing  yourself  and  in  casting  yourself 
down  before   any  earth,  consider  it  not  as  earth,  but 
consider  in  it  that  Holy  One,  of  whom  what  you  adore, 
is  the  footstool.     For  it  is  for  his  sake  that  you  adore  it. 
....     The  disciples  thought  it  very  hard  to  hear  him 
say;  unless  you  eat  my  flesh  you  shall  not  have  eternal 
life;  they  understood  it  stupidly,  and  conceived  it  car- 
nally, imagining  that  he  was  going  to  cut  off  pieces  of 
his  body,  and  give  to  them : .  .  .  .  but  our  Saviour  in- 
structed his  apostles;  (here  begi?is  Mr.  Faber^s  quota- 
tion) the  words  that  I  have  spoken  to  you  are  spirit  and 
life.     Understand  spiritually  what  I  have  saicL     It  is 
not  this  body  which  you  see,  that  you  will  eat;  nor  that 
blood  which  they  will  shed,  who  will  crucify  me,  that 
you  will  drink.     I  have  commended  to  you  a  certain 
sacrament;  spiritually  understood  it  will  give  you  life: 
though  it  must  be  celebrated  visibly,  it  must  be  con- 
ceived of  as  invisible.     Exalt  ye  the  Lord  our   God, 
and  adore  his  footstool  for  it  is  holy?''     Mr.  Faber  has 
thought  it  prudent  to  quote  no  more  than  the  six  or 


176  ANSWER  TO  THE 

eight  last  lines  of  the  text:*  they  serve  as  a  commenta- 
ry on  the  words  which  our  Saviour  had  just  spoken  to 
his  apostles.  After  the  example  of  St.  Augustin,  I 
will  give  a  commentary,  but  a  very  short  one  upon  the 
same  words.  The  flesh  profiteth  nothing,  it  is  the  spi- 
rit which  quickeneth.  Understand  spiritually  what  I 
say  to  you.  It  is  not  this  body,  such  as  you  see  it, 
that  you  shall  eat;  you  feel  shocked  at  the  idea:  but 
this  body  such  as  you  do  not  see  it.  It  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  you  under  a  certain  sacrament,  which  I  have 
in  view.  Thus  you  shall  eat  it:  and  without  that,  you 
shall  not  have  eternal  life  in  you.  Taken  invisibly  in 
a  visible  sacrament,  it  shall  be  to  your  souls  a  spiritu- 
al food,  which  you  shall  not  take  without  having  first 
adored  it. 

XIX.  The  modern  Church  of  England  man  no  longer 
acknowledges  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment: therefore  he  no  longer  receives  it  there.  For 
eating  in  imagination,  in  figure,  in  empty  shadow,  is 
after  all,  not  eating.  Hence  he  has  suppressed  the 
adoration.  Where  nothing  is  seen  but  material  bread, 
to  adore  would  be  to  commit  idolatry.  The  Catholic 
confiding  more  in  Jesus  Christ,  than  in  himself,  be- 
lieves in  the  word  of  his  Saviour  without  hesitation, 
and  in  his  invisible  presence  without  comprehending  it; 
he  adores  him  veiled  beneath  the  appearance  of  bread, 
receives  and  eats  his  body  in  reality;  certainly  not  in 
a  raw  and  Caphamite  manner,  but  heavenly  and  spiri- 
tual. For  there  is  no  other  way  of  eating  a  body  im- 
palpable, invisible  and  spiritualized. 

XX.  Mr.  Faber  would  not  fail  to  cry  victory,  if  I 
were  not  to  answer  the  objection  suggested  to  him  by 
the  silence  of  Julian.    As  a  last  resource  in  a  despe- 

•I  must  observe  that  in  the  translation,  these  words,  as  if  he 
had  taid — identical,  twice — on  the  contrary — do  not  belong  to  St. 
Augustin,  but  to  the  inventive  and  fertile  Bachelor  of  Divinity. 
They  add  to  the  text  without  any  way  increasing  the  difficulty. 
This  is  becoming  an  unfaithful  translator  to  no  earthly  purpoie. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  177 

rate  cause,  he  calls  to  his  aid  that  famous  renegade 
uas  an  unexceptionable  witness.''''  Proud  of  the  impe- 
rial majesty  on  which  he  leans,  he  comes  to  us  with 
the  air  and  tone  of  triumph.  Would  not  any  one  sup- 
pose that  he  had  in  his  possession  the  grand  work  ot 
that  emperor  against  the  Christian  religion,  and  in  de- 
fence of  paganism?  Would  not  any  one  say  that  he  had 
read  it  from  beginning  to  end,  when  he  is  heard  assert- 
ing in  such  an  affirmative  tone  that  Julian  has  not  said 
a  word  about  the  real  presence,  and  the  change  of  sub- 
stance? Well  sir,  would  you  wish  to  know  how  much 
truth  there  is  in  this  boasted  objection?  The  truth  is, 
that  neither  the  Rector  of  Long  Newton,  nor  any  one 
in  the  world  possesses,  or  has  read  the  work,  in  which 
he  has  thus  blindly  placed  his  confidence.  It  \ 
composed  by  Julian  and  the  philosophers  who  follow- 
ed him  into  Persia,  in  that  expedition,  which  put  an 
end  to  his  projects,  his  reign  and  his  life.  Some  have 
conjectured  that  it  was  divided  into  seven  books, 
others,  into  three.  We  know  no  more  of  it  now  than 
those  quotations  from  the  first  book,  for  which  we  are 
indebted  to  the  refutation  of  them  written  by  St.  Cyril, 
of  Alexandria,  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tate*    It  may  be  easily  supposed  that  the  author  had 

*  "Fifty  years  after  the  chath  of  the  renegado,  St.  Cyril  replied 
to  a  work,  which  Julian  wrote  in  three  books  against  the  Christian 
religion,  of  which  the  saint  has  preserved  the  first  ....  We  have 
no  more  of  the  work  of  Julian  against  the  Christians,  than  what 
St.  Cyril  has  quoted  in  order  to  refute  it."  Titlcmont  Hist,  des 
Emp. 

"During  this  journey  into  Persia,  Julian  wrote  his  grand  work 
against  the  Christian  religion  .  .  .  .  It  was  divided  into  seven  books, 
or  according  to  others,  into  three.  .  •  .  St.  Cyril  has  preserved  a 
great  part  of  it,  inserted  in  the  reply  which  he  afterwards  made  to 
it."  Fleury  Hist.  Eccl.  T.  4.  "Julian  died  before  there  was  tinu- 
to  reply  to  his  sophistry.  .  .  .  Nothing  would  have  been  left  us  of 
them,  if  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  having  undertaken  to  refute 
them  fifty  years  afterwards,  had  not  thus  preserved  a  consider- 
able portion."  Le  Beau  Hist,  du  bos  Emp.  T.  3.  "Julian  wrote 
an  elaborate  work  against  the  truth  of  Christianity:  of  which 

16 


178  ANSWER  TO  THE 

deferred  speaking  of  the  Eucharist  till  the  second  or 
third  book;  and  then  of  course  it  would  be  no  wonder 
to  find  nothing  of  it  in  the  first.  But  farther:  if  it  be 
insisted  that  he  ought  to  have  spoken  of  it  in  the  first 
book;  he  may  still  have  done  so;  and  no  one  can  now 
prove  that  he  did  not.  All  we  know  of  his  book  is 
from  its  refutation;  and  we  are  very  much  inclined  to 
think  that  St.  Cyril  would  take  great  care  not  to  give 
greater  publicity  to  the  raillery  of  Julian  against  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  How  indeed  could  he  have  reported 
them,  or  could  he  have  defended  our  dogmas,  without 
attracting  the  notice  and  attention  of  the  pagans  to  our 
mysteries,  and  by  such  indiscretion  injured  the  disci- 
pline of  the  secret,  as  well  as  the  precept  of  our  divine 
Legislator?  This  is  not  merely  a  conjecture  thrown  out 
at  hazard:  it  comes  from  Julian  himself;  hear  what  he 
says  about  baptism:  "But.  this  grave  philosopher  affects 
to  laugh  at  what  ought  rather  to  be  to  him  a  source  of 
self-congratulation:  he  is  utterly  ignorant  of  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacred  water  of  baptism;  he  is  pleased  to 
ridicule  what  is  the  most  holy  thing  in  the  world;  and 
congratulate  those  who  having  believed  in  Jesus 
Christ,  have  had  the  happiness  to  find  a  miraculous 
water,  which  removes  every  stain,  and  has  cleansed 
them  from  head  to  foot.  He  adds  other  insipid  jokesy 
and  old  nurses'1  tales;  and  he  says  afterwards  that  this 
lustral  water  is  without  power,  or  virtue  against  bodily 
diseases.  But  know,  O  wise  and  illustrious  teacher! 
that  we  do  not  apply  the  virtue  of  baptism  to  the  cure 

some  fragments  only  have  come  to  modern  times."  Recs'  Cyclope- 
dia. Art.  Julian. 

"The  elaborate  work,  which  he  composed  amidst  the  prepara- 
tions of  the  Persian  war,  contained  the  substance  of  those  argu- 
ments, which  he  had  long  revolved  in  his  mind.  Some  fragments 
have  been  transcribed  and  preserved,  by  his  adversary,  the  vehe- 
ment Cyril  of  Alexandria;  and  they  exhibit  a  very  singular  mix- 
ture of  wit  and  learning,  of  sophistry  and  fanaticism."  Gibbon's 
Decline  and  Fall,  chap,  xxiii.  Fabricius  and  Lardner  have  com- 
piled fragments  extant  of  Julian. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  179 

of  the  body,  nor  to  things  perceptible  by  the  senses. 
The  mystery  of  Christ  requires  an  intelligence,  of 
which  those  are  not  susceptible,  who  are  plunged  in 
errors.  It  is  faith,  which  opens  to  us  the  entrance  and 
knowledge  of  the  divine  mystery.  Lut  in  the  fear  of 
offending  Jesvs  Christ,  who  forbids  us  to  give  that 
which  is  holy  to  dogs,  and  cast  pearls  before  swine, 
by  presenting  to  profane  ears  wliat  ouglti  to  remain 
hidden,  I  shall  pass  over  all  that  requires  a  high  and 
sublime  intelligence."  And  after  touching  upon  some- 
thing of  the  power  and  miracles  of  our  Saviour,  he 
adds:  "I  could  say  much  more,  and  should  have  very 
certain  proofs  to  produce;  if  I  were  not  apprehensive 
of  exposing  myself  to  profane  ears.  For  people  gen- 
erally deride  what  they  do  not  understand;  and  the 
ignorant,  not  even  perceiving  the  weakness  of  their 
minds,  despise  what  they  ought  most  to  admire." 

You  see  then,  sir,  that  St.  Cyril  does  not  inform  you 
of  all  that  Julian  had  written  against  baptism.  His 
replies  are  fully  sufficient  to  refute  the  feeble  objec- 
tions, which  he  reports.  There  must  have  been  others, 
which  he  deemed  it  more  prudent  to  pass  over  than  to 
publish.  He  clearly  alludes  to  them  when  he  talks  of 
the  "insipid  jokes,  and  old  nurses'  tales,"  which  he 
passes  over  for  fear  of  infringing  the  law  of  secrecy. 
We  know  nothing  of  these;  we  should  not  even  suspect 
their  existence,  if  St.  Cyril  had  not  made  the  observa- 
tions, which  you  have  just  read.  Are  we  then  to  con- 
clude, because  he  is  silent  upon  the  Eucharist,  that 
Julian  had  not  turned  its  dogmas  into  ridicule?  No, 
sir,  the  silence  of  that  great  patriarch  is  no  proof  that 
the  emperor  had  been  silent.  If  the  Christian  apolo- 
gist considered  himself  obliged  to  be  so  reserved  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  how  much  more  ought  he  to 
have  thought  himself  so  bound  on  the  dogmas  of  the 
Eucharist,  the  sublimity  of  which  wrould  have  been 
much  more  open  to  the  derision  of  the  profane!  Be- 
sides, what  passed  at  the  altar  in  the  assemblies  of  the 


180  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Christians,  was,  as  you  know,  what  the  pagans  most 
eagerly  sought  to  discover,  and  even  to  extort  by  pun- 
ishments; and  it  was  also  what  the  faithful  concealed 
with  the  greatest  care,  perseverance  and  intrepidity, 
even  under  the  most  cruel  sufferings:  you  have  seen 
this  abundantly  proved. 

I  am  tempted  to  retort  the  Rector's  argument  upon 
himself.  It  is  a  fact  that  Julian  says  nothing  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  Certainly,  I  may  as 
justly  say  to  him,  this  lover  of  derision  would  not  have 
denied  himself  the  gratification  of  turning  that  into 
ridicule,  if  the  Christians  in  his  time  had  believed  in 
it.  What  reply  would  the  bachelor  of  divinity  make? 
That  no  doubt  he  had  amused  himself  in  so  doing  at 
the  expense  of  the  credulous  Christians,  in  one  or 
other  of  the  two  books,  which  have  never  come  down 
to  us.  Let  him  not  then  take  it  amiss,  that  I  give  him 
a  similar  answer  on  the  Eucharist.  When  I  hear  Mr. 
Faber  so  loudly  extol  the  pretended  silence  of  Julian; 
when  I  hear  him  conclude  his  redoubtable  argument  in 
these  words,  page  121 — "I  may  be  mistaken  in  esti- 
mating the  strength  of  this  argument;  but  it  strikes 
upon  my  own  apprehension,  as  being  perfectly  irresis- 
tible." I  must  say  that  one  thing  only  astonishes  me; 
the  assurance  to  which  he  abandons  himself  in  termi- 
nating his  episode.  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  will  give 
you  little  confidence  in  Mr.  Faber's  judgment. 

XXI.  I  believe  I  have  now  sufficiently  replied  to  the 
quotations  on  the  Eucharist,  scattered  up  and  down  in 
the  Difficulties  of  Romanism.  Mr.  Faber  might  have 
increased  the  list,  by  consulting  the  Perpctuite  de  la 
Foi.*  I  contented  myself  with  referring  to  that  work 
in  my  Discussion  ,/)micale:  and  indeed  to  what  purpose 
should  I  have  accumulated  them?  And  what  will  it 
avail  Mr.  Faber  to  make  a  lengthened  display  of  them? 

*  The  celebrated  work  of  two  of  the  ablest  French  controvert- 
ists;  always  excepting  him,  to  whom  none  can  be  compared,  the 
most  brilliant  genius  that  has  appeared  in  the  Church,  Bossuet. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  181 

Tliey  arc  taken  from  writings  made  for  the  public,  or 
discourses  preached  before  the  uninitiated,  to  whom 
the  Fathers  addressed  themselves  more  frequently 
than  to  the  faithful  alone.  Thus  the  obligation  of  con- 
cealing the  mysteries  was  more  frequent  than  that  of 
manifesting  them.  Candour  and  good  faith  therefore 
would  direct  us  to  put  aside  those  texts,  which  present 
intentional  obscurity.  But  in  place  of  these  texts  and 
incidental  expressions,  let  one  single  catechesis  be  final- 
ly produced  against  us.  Then  the  objection  would 
have  some  weight.  For  every  one  knows  and  acknow- 
ledges that  instructions  must  have  been  clear  and  ex- 
plicit, which  were  made  to  the  newly  baptized,  on  the 
subject  of  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  which  they 
were  about  to  receive.  There,  and  there  only,  will  at 
any  time  be  found  without  obscurity,  and  treated  ex 
professo  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  on  the  Eucha- 
rist. Let  only  one  of  these  catecheses  be  produced, 
where  the  neophytes  are  instructed  to  see  nothing  in 
the  offerings  after  consecration,  but  mere  signs,  simple 
types  and  figures  of  Jesus  Christ  absent,  as  Mr.  Faber 
affirms,  without  being  able  to  give  any  proof  of  it;*  let 
such  a  document  be  produced,  and  then  we  shall  have 
really  to  solve  a  serious  difficulty.  But  to  go  in  search 
of  the  real  sentiments  and  belief  of  the  Fathers  in  dis- 
courses and  writings  where  they  could  not  disclose 
them,  where  they  themselves  apprize  us  of  their  diffi- 
culty in  expressing  themselves,  this  I  must  denounce  aa 

♦After  saying  at  page  129  that  I  copiously  adduce  passages  on 
the  change  of  the  elements  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the 
Rector  reproachfully  adds,  that  I  say  nothing  of  those,  "in  which 
tliis  change  is  declared  to  be  purely  moral,  in  which  the  elements 
are  pronounced  to  be  mere  symbols,"  though  these  passages  "fulry 
explain  all  passages  of  the  former  description."  My  reply  is  sim- 
ple enough.  1  have  not  indeed  cited  a  single  passage  which  de- 
clares, that  there  is  nothing  effected  but  a  moral  change,  that  the 
emblems  are  mere  symbols  or  emblems:  for  in  truth  I  know  of  no 
such  passages,  and  the  Rector  knows  none  either.  He  produce* 
none,  and  will  never  be  able  to  bring  forward  any  such  passage. 

16* 


192  ANSWER  TO  THE 

a  proceeding  analogical,  unreasonable  and  absurd. 
That  it  should  be  pursued  without  reflection,  and  by 
mere  routine,  as  your  divines  have  formed  a  habit  of 
doing  since  1662,  I  can  conceive:  but  that,  after  hav- 
ing been  admonished  by  a  series  of  convincing  proofs, 
they  should  still  obstinately  pursue  the  same  method, 
and  point  it  out  to  others  as  the  true  one,  is  assuredly 
preferring  error  to  truth,  and  being  disposed  to  go 
wilfully  astray,  and  draw  others  into  their  own  aber- 
rations. 

XXII.  I  beseech  you,  sir,  to  consider  seriously  the 
method  adopted  by  Mr.  Father,  and  the  consequences 
resulting  from  it.  To  the  instructions  exposed  with 
the  greatest  clearness  in  the  catecheses  on  the  real  pre- 
sence, change  of  substance  and  adoration,  what  an- 
swer does  he  give?  The  same  as  to  our  arguments 
from  the  discipline  of  the  secret,  and  from  the  liturgies. 
He  does  not  enter  straight  forward  upon  the  discus- 
sion: he  bewilders  his  reader,  and  leads  him  out  of  the 
way  by  irrelevant  quotations;  he  opposes  his  quotations 
to  mine,  and  pretends  that  his  own  sufficiently  explain 
those,  which  I  had  previously  cited  against  him*  Your 
dogmas,  says  he,  could  not  have  been  either  the  ob- 
ject of  the  secret ,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  liturgies  and 
catecheses,  if  it  be  true  that  they  were  unknown  to  the 
primitive  Church.  And  it  is  precisely  from  the  secret, 
the  liturgies,  and  the  catecheses,  that  irrefragable 
proofs  crowd  upon  us,  of  the  universality  and  apostol- 
icity  of  our  dogmas.  But  he,  being  unable  to  refute, 
and  unwilling  to  admit  them,  turns  away  his  eyes,  goes 
out  of  the  straight  path,  and  imagines  that  he  shall  de- 
stroy them,  or  at  least  counterpoise  them,  by  shewing 
what  we  do  not  dispute,  that  the  Fathers  in  several 
places  have  designated  the  offerings  even  after  conse- 
cration by  the  words,  bread,  wine,  sign,  sacrament, 
type,  emblem,  figure  and  memorial;  that  they  have 

*  Passages  of  this  latter  description,  ....  fully  explain  all  pas- 
sages of  the  former  description,  &c.  p.  130. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  183 

spoken  of  them  as  spiritual  aliments,  and  beverage, 
and  mentioned  mandueation  with  faith  and  by  faith. 
These  expressions  prove  nothing  against  our  belief, 
since  we  often  use  them  ourselves.*  They  were  the 
more  familiar  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  as,  with- 
out injury  to  their  faith,  they  happily  promoted  their 
views,  by  designating  the  mystery  by  its  external  ap- 
pearance only.  The  uninitiated  conceived  no  idea  be- 
yond; while  the  faithful  easily  penetrated  the  veil,  and 
from  the  sensible  appearance,  were  led  to  the  reality, 
which  does  not  appear. 

For  the  rest,  sir,  if  you  will  be  at  the  pains  of  ex- 
amining, you  will  find  that  these  expressions  chiefly 
belong,  as  I  must  once  more  observe,  to  those  writings 
which  the  Fathers  gave  to  the  public,  and  the  dis-- 
courses  which  they  pronounced  before  the  uninitiated. 
In  seeking  the  true  sense  of  the  catecheses  in  writings 
of  this  kind,  Mr.  Faber  must  suppose  that  the  Fathers 
expressed  themselves  more  openly  on  the  Eucharist 
before  the  catechumens,  Jews  and  Pagans,  than  before 
the  newly-baptized  at  the  moment  of  their  first  com- 
munion!   According  to  him  then,   the  Church    must 

*  We  say,  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist;  we  say  the  type,  the  sign, 
but  the  visible  sign  of  the  invisible  body  is  understood:  in  the  canon 
of  the  mass,  and  even  after  the  consecration,  we  say:  panem  sanc- 
tum vitcc  a:tern<x  et  caliccm  salutis  pcrpetuce:  before  receiving  the  pre- 
cious blood,  the  priest  says:  calicem  salutaris accipiam ;  we  sing  panls 
angelicusfit  panis  hominum;  dot  paais  adieus  figuris  tcrminum:  we 
oppose  to  the  idea  of  the  Capharnaites  a  spiritual  mandueation. 

It  is  done  w*ith  us  by  faith;  with  you,  not  at  all.  For  what  great 
act  of  faith  must  be  made,  I  pray  you,  to  remember  Jesus  Christ 
at  the  sight  of  bread  and  wine  placed  on  the  communion  table  in 
memory  of  his  death?  Much  the  same  as  we  make  to  remind  us 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  his  mother,  when  we  hear  the  Angelus-bell 
ring.  But  we  must  have  a  lively  and  firm  faith  in  the  word  of  our 
Saviour,  to  believe  him  present  under  the  outward  species,  net- 
withstanding  all  that  is  suggested  by  taste,  colour,  and  smell.  This 
is  so  true,  that  the  Sacramentarians  rejected  our  doctrine,  because 
they  could  not  bring  themselves  to  make  such  an  act  of  faith,  and 
they  oppose  incessantly  the  authority  of  the  senses,  to  our  confi- 
dence in  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ. 


184  ANSWER  TO  THE 

have  prcscibed  greater  reserve  before  the  latter,  and 
kept  her  most  intimate  confidence  for  the  former!  But 
she  orderd  precisely  the  contrary;  you  have  seen  it  al- 
ready demonstrated.  It  is  therefore  evidently  false  rea- 
soning to  wish  with  the  reverend  Bachelor  to  interpret 
the  doctrine  which  was  of  necessity  to  be  exposed  as 
clearly  as  possible  to  the  neophytes,  by  that  which 
was  as  necessarily  to  be  concealed  before  unbelievers; 
to  explain  what  must  have  been  manifest,  by  what 
must  have  been  intentionally  hidden;  that  is,  what  is 
clear,  by  what  is  obscure — light,  by  shade.  This  is  a 
first  consequence  of  the  method  which  I  oppose. 

XXIII.  In  the  second  place,  admit  for  one  moment 
the  principles  and  argumentation  of  Mr.  Faber,  and 
you  will  be  forced  to  conclude  that  the  primitive 
Church  never  knew  any  uniformity  in  her  doctrine;  that 
she  at  this  day  presents  nothing  but  a  discordant  scene 
of  opposite  and  contradictory  opinions,  a  succession  of 
bishops  in  intestine  war  about  doctrines,  teaching  pro 
and  contra,  some  the  real  presence  and  transubstan- 
tiation,  others  a  figurative  presence,  a  real  absence,  a 
moral  change,  the  bread  and  wine  retaining  their  own 
substance  with  their  sensible  qualities,  and  only  pas- 
sing from  ordinary  use  to  a  religious  distinction.  Among 
the  latter  you  must  enumerate,  if  you  believe  Mr. 
Faber,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  St.  Cy- 
prian, &c.  while  among  the  former  we  cannot  but 
reckon  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
S  S.  Ephrem,  Ambrose,  Zeno,  Gaudentius  of  Brescia, 
&c.  whose  testimonies  we  have  seen,  leaving  not  a 
shadow  of  doubt  on  the  Catholic  belief.  This  is  a 
second  consequence. 

XXIV.  Thirdly,  not  only  will  the  Fathers  be  found 
in  contradiction  with  each  other,  but  even  contradic- 
tory to  themselves.  For  example:  according  to  Mr. 
Faber,  page  68,  there  is  nothingp/w/sicaiinthe  change 
of  the  bread  and  wine  spoken  of  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, (Catech.  Myst.  4)  every  thing  there  is  moral; 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  185 

and  consequently  it  proves  neither  the  real  presence  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  nor  a  chan§  e  of  substance. 

But  St.  Cyril,  who  apparently  knew  what  he  was  a 
ing,  explains  himself  in  these  words  in  the  same  cate- 
chetical instruction:  uBelieve  thai  what  appears  to  yon 
bread,  is  not  bread,  but  the  body  of  Christ,  although 
the  taste  judges  it  to  be  bread;  and  that  tiie  wine  whieh 
you  see,  and  which  Ins  the  taste  of  wine,  is  not  wine, 
but  the  blood  of  Christ.'5  According  to  Mr.  Faber, 
St.  Chrysostom  acknowledges  no  more  than  a  moral 
change  in  the  Eucharist,  because  he  calls  it  spiritual 
food,  which  after  all  is  quite  a  Catholic  expression;  but 
besides  that  in  the  same  homily  on  the  treason  of  Judas, 
and  in  a  hundred  other  places,  several  of  which  1  have 
already  quoted,  he  clearly  establishes  our  doctrines,  it 
will  suffice  to  inform  you  in  this  place  that  he  is  con- 
sidered among  the  learned  as  having  been  raised  up  by 
the  Almighty  to  exalt  and  extol  in  the  Church  the  gran- 
deur and  sanctity  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  None  ever 
discoursed  upon  it  with  so  much  pomp  and  eloquence  as 
this  great  patriarch.  If  we  are  to  believe  Mr.  Faber, 
St.  Augustin  teaches  simply  a  moral  change  in  the 
Eucharist,  when  he  declares  that  the  words  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  bis  disciples  are  to  be  understood  spiritually. 
But  if  we  must  attach  the  sense  of  Mr.  Faber  to  this 
expression,  St.  Augustin  contradicts  what  he  had  just 
established  a  little  earlier  in  the  very  same  discourse. 
For  he  had  just  been  proving  that  we  not  only  may  adore 
Jesus  Christ,  when  we  receive  him  in  the  Eucharist, 
but  even  that  we  should  sin  if  we  did  not  there  adore 
him.  Here  then  we  should  have  the  real  presence 
demonstrated  by  the  adoration,  and  rejected  a  few  lines 
farther  on  by  the  assertion  of  a  simple  moral  change! 
The  same  reasoning  must  be  applied  to  Theodoret. 
Indeed  it  is  impossible  for  the  Fathers  to  escape  the 
charge  of  self-contradiction,  if  you  adopt  the  method  of 
Mr.  Faber.  On  the  contrary,  that  which  we  have  de- 
duced from  the  secret,  the  liturgies  and  the  catceheses 


186  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Bare  them  from  all  contradiction  with  each  other 
and  with  themselves.  They  uniformly  express  them- 
selves as  they  ought;  openly,  when  they  could;  ob- 
scurely, when  they  found  it  necessary;  clearly,  before 
the  faithful,  dogmatically  explicit  before  the  newly- 
baptized;  but  reservedly  and  in  hidden  terms  before 
the  unbelievers.  The  error  of  Mr.  Faber  and  all 
the  sacramentarians,  is  in  looking  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  Fathers  where  it  was  necessarily  involved  in 
obscure  terms;  instead  of  seeking  it  where  it  ought  in- 
dispensably to  have  been  explicit.* 

XXV.  Fourthly,  it  is  highly  important  to  observe, 
that  Mr.  Fabcr's  method  would  convict  the  Fathers  of 
farther  and  still  more  fatal  contradiction.  Opposed  to 
each  other,  and  at  variance  with  themselves  in  their 
instructions,  they  would  have  been  still  more  so  in  their 
conduct;  their  teaching  would  have  condemned  their 
practice,  and  the  doctrine  which  they  taught  in  the  pul- 
pit, must  have  destroyed  that  which  they  professed  at 
the  altar.  Those  apostolic  men,  those  pious  and  learn- 
ed bishops  celebrated  the  divine  mysteries  as  often  as 
circumstances  permitted,  at  the  head  of  their  flocks. 
There  united  in  profound  recollection,  pastors  and 
people  humbled  before  the  majesty  of  God,  addressed 
to  heaven  prayers  animated  with  the  fire  of  charity. 
There  when  profound  silence  announced  the  approach 

*  The  Rev.  Bachelor,  at  page  135,  makes  me  say  that  on  the  one 
hand,  the  Fathers  communicated  to  the  mystic  the  grand  secret  of 
transubstantiation,  while  on  the  other,  they  declared  to  the  unin- 
itiated that  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  were  only  types,  vr 
figures,  or  representations  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  "By 
this  contrivance,'"  he  adds,  '*  and  at  no  greater  expense  than  that  of 
a  direct  falsehood,  every  thing  continued  as  it  ought  to  be."  Now 
here  is  a  twofold  und  gross  falsehood.  It  exists  in  the  word  only, 
which  he  palms  upon  us,  but  which  never  came  from  the  mouths  of 
the  Fathers,  nor  from  mine,  when  speaking  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
new  law.  Take  away  this  only,  as  truth,  honour  and  good  faith 
demand  and  then  are  we  all  absolved — the  Fathers  and  myself, 
from  falsehood,  and  Mr.  Faber  from  imposition. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  187 

of  the  holy  sacrifice,  the  celebrant  offered  to  heaven 
those  sublime  prayers,  in  which  he  invoked  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  offerings,  that  he  would 
come  to  change  and  transform  by  his  omnipotence  the 
bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
There  before  communion,  each  one  made  aloud  a 
fervent  profession  of  faith  in  the  presence  of  our  Saviour 
by  the  change  of  substance.  There  in  fine,  advancing 
in  turns  towards  the  holy  table,  bowing  down  in  silent 
adoration,  they  received  with  love  and  trembling  the 
body  of  our  divine  Saviour  veiled  beneath  the  species. 
These  things,  sir,  you  have  seen  in  the  ancient  liturgies 
of  all  the  Christian  churches.  The  Rev.  Bachelor 
must  have  read  them.  Finding  it  impossible  to  answer 
them,  he  has  turned  away  from  them  in  sorrow.  I  do 
not  blame  him  for  his  silence,  for  neither  he,  nor  any 
one  else  wilfever  obscure  the  unalterable  splendour  of 
the  liturgies.  What  I  blame  in  him,  is  his  not  having 
the  candour  and  courage  to  acknowledge  it  and  sur- 
render himself  to  it;  I  blame  him  for  having  persisted 
in  his  method,  for  continuing  to  suppose  the  Fathers 
of  the  primitive  Church  contradictory  to  themselves  in 
instruction  and  practice;  disclosing  the  mystery  with- 
out disguise  to  the  uninitiated,  and  concealing  it  from 
the  neophytes;  teaching  the  nations  that  in  the  new  law 
as  in  the  old,  the  bread  and  wine  are  only  signs  and 
figures  of  Jesus  Christ  absent,  and  at  the  same  time 
inviting  the  faithful  by  their  example  to  adore  Jesus 
Christ  as  present  under  those  signs,  emblems  and 
figures.  I  accuse  him  in  fine,  of  supposing  the  Fath- 
ers to  have  been  alternately  Sacramentnrians  in  theory 
and  Catholics  in  the  sacred  functions  of  the  priesthood; 
advocates  of  a  moral  change  in  their  writings  and 
sermons,  after  having  shewn  themselves  at  the  altar 
intimately  persuaded  of  a  change  of  substance;  de- 
claiming out  of  doors  against  the  idolatry  of  paganism, 
and  in  their  secret  assemblies  erecting  a  new  system 
of  idolatry  for  the  faithful,  and  obliging  them  by  their 


138  ANSWER  TO  THE 

own  example  to -prostitute  their  vows  and  adoration  to 
mere  material  substances. 

XXVI.  I  figure  to  myself  that  numerous  and  vene- 
rable train  of  pontiffs  and  doctors,  the  witnesses  of  the 
apostolical  doctiines,  and  our  true  masters  in  faith — I 
imagine  those  holy  and  illustrious  personages,  shaking 
off  the  dust  of  the  tomb,  returned  to  life,  placing  them- 
selves between  us  and  the  Sacramentarians,  and  ad- 
dressing all  those  who  share  the  profession  and  theolo- 
gy of  Mr.  Faber  in  the  following  wrords: — "You,  who 
seem  to  attach  such  value  and  authority  to  the  uniform 
traditions,  which  we  bequeathed  to  you;  and  who  only 
need,  as  you  say,  to  know  them,  to  induce  you  to  adopt 
them;  how  came  you  to  misunderstand  those,  which 
we  faithfully  transmitted  from  the  apostles  to  our  vari- 
ous Churches,  concerning  the  most  august  of  all  the 
sacraments?  How  came  you  not  to  understand  what 
we  so  often  expressed  in  our  writings,  and  what  we 
shall  now  briefly  repeat  to  you?  We  admonished  you 
that  "the  sublimity  of  the  Eucharist  so  far  surpassed 
the  limits  of  the  human  understanding,  that  it  would 
have  been  folly  in  us  to  believe  it,  if  it  had  not  come  to 
us  from  the  very  mouth  of  our  divine  Founder.  He 
lias  said,  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  my  blood  is  drink  in- 
deed. He  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  of  the  reality  of 
his  flesh  and  blood.  Is  not  that  the  pure  truth?  Let 
those  only  account  it  false,  who  deny  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  the  true  God."# 

XXVII.  "In  vain  do  you  seek  to  persuade  us  that 
you  would  not  be  staggered  by  mysteries,  but  would 
admit  the  real  presence  and  transubstantiation,  if  it 
were  proved  to  you  that  ice  had  ourselves  admitted 
them.  You  have  abundant  proofs  that  we  did  so;  there- 
fore you  deceive  yourselves.  The  truth  is,  that  your 
reason  seeks  to  sound  and  penetrate  every  thing;  and 
because  it  cannot  fathom  the  mystery,  it  imagines  a 

*  St.  Hilary,  Book  8,  on  the  Trinity. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  189 

certain  moral  change,  and  certain  empty  signs  to  evade 
our  testimonies,  and  strive  to  reconcile  faith  with  your 
senses." 

"What  do  you  attempt,  O  daring  mortals!  Is  it  not 
an  excess  of  folly  and  temerit)  m  you,  who  are  but  a 
little  dust  kneaded  together,  to  presume  to  sound  this 
abyss?  Partake  of  the  immaculate  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord,  with  a  most  full  faith."*  "Why  do  you  at- 
tempt to  fathom  what  is  unfathomable?  Why  do  you 
6eek  to  comprehend  things  incomprehensible;  and  to 
penetrate  what  is  impenetrable?  Let  us  believe  God 
in  all  things,  and  not  contradict  him,  although  what  he 
tells  us  should  appear  to  us  contrary  to  our  thoughts, 
and  to  our  sight.  Since  it  is  his  word  which  says  to 
us:  this  is  my  body,  let  us  be  convinced  of  it,  let  us  be- 
lieve it,  and  behold  it  with  an  eye  of  faith,  "f  "I  ask 
no  reason  of  Jesus  Christ  ....  Therefore  let  no  one 
talk  to  me  of  argument,  when  I  am  required  to  have 
faith:  let  reasoning  be  silent  in  the  schools.  Place 
your  hand  upon  your  mouth;  it  is  not  lawful  to  dive  in- 
to mysteries."!  "The  mere  animal  and  indocile  mind, 
when  any  thing  is  beyond  its  reach,  rejects  it  as  an 
extravagant  notion,  because  it  surpasses  its  capacity. 
Its  ignorant  temerity  leads  it  to  extreme  pride  .... 
The  Jews  ought  to  have  received  the  words  of  our 
Saviour  without  hesitation,  as  they  had  often  admired 

his  divine  virtue,  and  invincible  power  upon  earth 

And  vet  behold  them  coming  forth  against  God  with 
that  senseless  how: — How  can  this  man  give  us  hisjlesh 
to  eat?  As  if  they  were  not  sensible  how  blasphemous 
was  such  a  manner  of  speaking,  since  in  God  resides 
the  power  of  doing  all  without  difficulty  ....  If  thou 
persistest,  O  Jew,  in  advancing  this  how — I  will  ask 
thee,  in  my  turn,  how  the  rod  of  Moses  was  changed 
into  a  serpent?     How  were  the  waters  changed  into 

*  St.  Ephrem,  Against  curiosity  infaViomingMyst. 
f  Si.  Clirysostom,  Horn.  23,  on  St.  John. 
j  St.  Ambrose,  on  Abraham. 

r  17 


190  ANSWER  TO  THE 

blood?  It  behoves  thee  then  much  more  to  believe  in 
Christ  and  give  credit  to  his  words ....  As  for  you,  when 
you  receive  the  divine  mysteries,  have  faith  free  from 
all  curiosity. — This  is  what  is  required;  and  we  must 
not  oppose  a  hoiv  to  the  words  which  are  there  said."* 
Candidly,  gentlemen,  do  you  find  this  doctrine  at  all 
in  unison  with  yourowrn?  Do  men  express  themselves 
in  this  way,w7hen  they  behold  nothing  in  the  Eucharist 
but  your  inanimate  signs,  your  lifeless  figures?  Does 
this  vehemence  of  language  suit  your  moral  change; 
or  this  elevation  of  sentiments,  your  pitiful  transition 
from  a  domestic  use  of  the  bread  1o  a  religious  use? 
Would  ideas  so  gross  and  material  as  these  have  in- 
spired what  you  have  just  heard,  and  what  yet  re- 
mains to  be  presented  to  your  attentive  consideration? 
XXVII.  "A  man  may  well  be  carried  in  the  hands 
of  another,  but  no.  ope,  in  his  own  hands;  we  cannot 
therefore  understand  these  words  literally  of  David; 
(he  was  carried  in  his  hands)f  but  we  see  how  that 
may  be  understood  of  Jesus  Christ  to  tfie  very  letter. 
For  when,  committing  to  us  his  body  he  said:  this 
is  my  body,  Christ  was  held  in  his  own  hands.  He 
bore  that  body  in  his  hands."  Jesus  Christ  drank 
himself  of  his  chalice,  lest  his  apostles,  hearing  him 
6ay  these  things,  should  say  to  themselves:  what  then. 
Do  we  drink  blood,  and  eat  flesh?  and  should  be  trou- 
bled. For  when  he  spoke  of  these  mysteries,  many 
were  scandalized.  In  order  therefore  that  they  might 
not  then  be  troubled,  he  himself  gives  them  first  the 
example,  thus  inviting  them  to  partake  without  trouble 
of  the  mysteries:  therefore  it  was  that  he  drank  of  his 
own  blood.""];  Do  not  deceive  yourselves,  gentlemen; 
these  ideas  and  comments  are  evidently  incompatible 
with  your  systems  of  a  figurative  presence,  and  a  mo- 
ral change. 

*  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  B.  4  on  St.  John. 

t  St.  Jlugustin,  on  the  title  of  Ps.  33,  according  to  the  Septuagint 

\St.  Chrysost.  Horn.  71. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  191 

XXVIII.  One  single  word  ought  to  have  sufficed  to 
convince  you  that  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  was  always  the  object  of  our  belief.  This  word 
cannot  have  escaped  your  notice;  so  often  is  it  repeat- 
ed in  our  writings;  it  is  this,  once  again:  u adore  and 
communicate"*  ''After  having  communicated  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ,  approach  to  the  chalice  of  his 
blood,  not  extending  your  hands,  but  bowing  down  in 
(he  attitude  of  homage  and  adoration,  saying,  Jlmen.-\ 
Mary  adored  Jesus  Christ,  the  Apostles  also  adored 
him,  and  the  angels  even  adore  him,  according  as 
it  is  written;  let  all  the  angels  of  God  adore  him. 
But  they  not  only  adore  his  divinity,  but  also  his  foot- 
stool, because  it  is  hoi  v.  If  the  heretics  denv  that  the 
mysteries  of  his  incarnation  arc  to  be  adored  ....  they 
may  read  in  the  scripture  that  the  apostles  also  adored 
him,  when  he  was  risen  with  a  body  clothed  in  glory. 
For  we  ought  not  to  consider  this  foot-stool  of  his  ac- 
cording to  the  common  use  of  men.  Moreover  we 
ought  not  to  adore  any  but  God.  .  .  .  Therefore  we 
must  examine  more  particularly  what  this  foot-stool  is, 
which  is  beneath  the  feet  of  the  Lord.  For  we  read 
elsewhere:  the  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  tlie  earth  my 
footstool.  But  we  must  not  adore  the  earth,  because 
it  is  but  a  creature.  Let  us  take  notice  however  if 
the  earth  which  the  prophet  would  have  us  adore,  be 
not  that  earth  with  which  the  Lord  Jesus  was  clothed 
in  his  incarnation. — We  must  say  therefore  that  the 
footstool  is  the  earth;  and  by  this  earth,  is  to  be  un- 
derstood the  very  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  we  still 
adore  in  our  holy  mysteries,l  and  which  the  apostles 
adored  in  his  person." 

The  adoration  spoken  of  here,  and  in  several  other 
texts,  and  which  we  render  to  him  in  his  sacrament, 

•  St.  Chrys.  Horn.  71. 

]  St.  Cyril,  Horn.  4,  Mystajj. 

\  St.  Ambrose,  B.  3,  of  the  II.  Ghoet. 


192  ANSWER  TO  THE 

cannot  be  reduced  to  a  mere  profession  of  honour,  or 
a  simple  feeling  of  respect.  You  have  just  seen  that 
it  was  precisely  the  same  which  he  had  received 
from  Mary,  and  the  wise  men  in  the  manger,  from 
the  apostles  before  and  after  his  resurrection,  from 
the  angels  at  his  birth,  and  at  his  baptism,  the  same 
spoken  of  by  St.  Paul,  when  he  tells  us  that  before 
him  every  knee  should  bow,  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and 
under  the  earth;  that  adoration  in  fine  which  is  due  to 
God  alone.  It  was  therefore  the  worship  due  by  all 
men  to  the  supreme  majesty  of  their  Creator,  the 
worship  of  latria. 

XXIX.  But,  gentlemen,  you  who  speak  in  admira- 
tion of  the  primitive  Church,  and  boast  of  having 
revived  the  beauty  and  purity  of  her  doctrine,  you 
have  basely  rejected  the  adoration  which  she  held  due 
to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  You  attempt  to 
justify  yourselves  before  the  people,  and  in  your  own 
eyes,  by  bringing  together  those  passages  of  our 
writings,  where  we  designate  the  offerings  by  the 
names  of  signs,  types,  emblems,  representations,  figures 
and  memorials.  But  in  the  first  place,  you  ought  to 
know  that  these  expressions  do  not  exclude  the  invisi- 
ble presence  of  the  body  of  our  Saviour:  you  find  our 
successors  in  the  ministry,  and  in  doctrine,  making  use 
of  the  same  before  your  eyes:  we  ourselves  also  occa- 
sionally used  them  before  the  faithful,  to  shew  them 
the  agreement  of  both  testaments,  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  old  and  new  laws,  the  figure  and  the  reality, 
the  promise  and  its  accomplishment.  We  expressed 
ourselves  thus:  "The  sacrifice  offered  by  our  Lord  to 
his  Father  is  the  same  as  that  which  Melchisedech 
had  offered  in  the  figures  of  bread  and  wine.  Jesus 
Christ  rendered  present  the  truth  of  his  body  and  of 
his  blood."*  "After  the  manducation  of  the  typical 
passover,  Jesus  Christ  proceeded  to  the  true  sacra- 

*  St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  53,  to  Cecilius. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  193 

ment  of  the  true  passover;  and  as  Mclchisedech  had 
offered  in  the  figure  of  bread  and  wine,  Jesus  Christ 
rendered  present  the  truth  of  his  body  and  of  his 
blood. "*  There  is  no  less  difference  between  the 
loaves  of  proposition  and  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  than 
between  the  shadow  and  the  body,  the  image  and  the 
truth,  the  figures  of  things  to  come,  and  what  was  re- 
presented by  those  figures."f  Every  time  that  we  ap- 
proaeh  to  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
receive  him  in  our  hands,  we  believe  that  we  become 
flesh  of  his  flesh  and  hone  of  his  bone,  as  it  is  written. 
— For  Jesus  Christ  did  not  give  to  this  body  the  name 
of  figure  or  appearance,  but  he  said:  this  is  truly  my 
body,  this  is  my  blood.^l  The  faithful  who  knew  per- 
fectly well  that  Jesus  Christ  came  to  fulfil  the  figures, 
as  well  as  the  prophecies  of  the  old  law,  understood 
without  difficulty  the  relation  between  the  figures  of 
his  body,  and  reality  of  his  presence.§ 

In  fine  we  made  frequent  use  of  the  words,  signs, 
types,  figures,  &c.  and  with  a  very  different  intention. 
You  are  not  ignorant  that  we  lived  in  the  midst  of 
Jews  and  Pagans;  that  our  divine  Legislator  had  ex- 
pressly forbidden  us  to  disclose  our  mysteries  to  them. 
Place  yourselves  in  our  situation:  what  would  you  have 
done,  if  from  the  pulpit  you  had  discovered,  as  was 
often  our  case,  some  of  those  profane  persons  in  the 
assembly  of  the  faithful?  Would  you  not  then  have 
made  choice  of  the  vague,  ambiguous,  and  indefinite 
expressions  which  you  often  meet  with  in  our  dis- 
courses and  homilies?  Would  you  not  have  equally 
employed  them  in  writings  intended  for  public  circula- 

•  St.  Jerom.  Ep.  to  Hedilia. 

f  Ibid,  Ep.  to  Heliodorus. 

J  St.  Maridhas,  Bp.  of  Tagrit,  Bibl.  Orient.  T.  I,  p.  179. 

§  It  was  reserved  for  Mr.  Faber  and  his  masters  since  the  year 
1662,  to  imagine  that  all  the  figures  of  the  Old  Testament  had  not 
been  fulfilled  in  the  New,  and  to  inform  us  that  bread  was  nothing 
more  for  Christians  than  for  Jews;  still  continuing  the  perpetual 
figure  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ. 

17* 


194  ANSWER  TO  THE 

tion.  And  what  would  you  say  in  these  days  to  per- 
sons pretending  to  judge  of  your  real  sentiments,  after 
the  lapse  of  so  many  centuries,  by  passages  which 
you  found  yourselves  obliged  to  disguise?  This  point 
we  especially  recommend  to  your  notice;  and  may  you 
never  forget  it!  If  our  belief  on  the  sacrament  of  the 
altar  had  been  like  yours,  we  should  have  had  no 
motive  to  conceal  it;  but  on  the  contrary  the  most 
urgent  reasons  for  its  manifestation. 

XXX.  Would  you  know  in  exact  truth  what  we 
concealed  with  so  much  care,  concerning  the  Eucha- 
rist; what  we  did  in  the  divine  service;  and  in  what 
that  service  consisted.  You  have  only  to  open  our 
liturgies,  and  you  will  see  these  things  faithfully  de- 
tailed. By  our  practice  you  will  become  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  our  belief.  The  connexion  between 
both  is  so  evident,  that  we  were  commanded  to  with- 
hold both  alike  from  the  knowledge  of  Jews,  pagans, 
and  catechumens;  but  to  shew  them  openly  to  the 
newly-baptized.  We  faithfully  discharged  this  two- 
fold obligation.  We  scrupulously  excluded  the  unini- 
tiated at  the  moment  when  the  sacrifice  was  about  to 
commence;  and  when  we  had  to  speak  on  the  Eucha- 
rist in  their  presence,  we  confined  ourselves  to  the 
exterior  qualities  of  bread  and  wine.  With  the 
neophytes  we  went  further;  we  proceeded  from  the 
appearance  to  the  reality  of  the  body  which  they  were 
about  to  receive,  and  explained  to  them  the  order  of 
the  divine  service,  at  which  they  were,  for  the  first 
time,  about  to  assist. 

Providence  ordained  that  by  exception  from  the 
general  prohibition,  some  few  of  our  catecfwses  should 
be  committed  to  writing,  and  descend  even  to  you. 
They  suffice  to  give  you  a  knowledge  of  all  the  rest; 
for  in  every  thing  essential,  they  were  alike  in  all  the 
churches  of  Christendom:  those  which  you  have  ex- 
hibit the  universal  doctrine  of  the  first  five  centuries. 
During  that  long  period  of  fervour,  there  was  not  a 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM*  195 

single  Christian  who  heard  from  our  mouths  any  other. 
We  instructed  our  adults,  as  you  instruct  your  chil- 
dren; except  that  we  developed  our  dogmas  more 
fully,  because  their  more  enlarged  understanding  ren- 
dered them  capable  of  receiving  them  so  developed. 
Had  you  lived  in  our  times,  you  would  have  received 
the  lessons  which  we  gave  to  them;  you  would  have 
had  the  same  doctrine  delivered  to  you;  and  if  it  be 
true,  as  you  constantly  declare,  that  you  are  anxious  to 
live  and  die  in  their  communion,  adopt  we  entreat  you, 
their  faith  and  their  works:  believe  and  practice,  on 
the  most  important  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  what 
they  believed  and  practised. 

XXXI.  Alas !  why  is  it  not  possible  for  us  to 
assure  you,  that  you  may  safely  persevere  in  the 
opinions  which  you  have  received  from  childhood,  and 
which  you  preach  so  zealously!  For  we  should  be 
delighted  to  speak  to  you  none  but  pleasant  things; 
God  is  our  witness!  Yet  at  the  hazard  of  displeasing 
you,  we  love  rather  to  render  you  a  solid  service.  We 
tell  you  therefore  plainly;  your  belief  is  not  that  of  the 
primitive  Church;  we  never  knew  such  a  creed.  Com- 
pare our  catechisms  with  your  own,  on  the  subject  of 
which  we  treat;  compare  the  explanations  which  you 
give  of  them,  with  those  which  you  read  in  our 
catecheses.  How  remarkable  is  the  difference!  Yet 
you  must  choose;  and  to  which  will  you  give  the  pre- 
ference? You  cannot  hesitate  without  contradicting 
yourselves;  since,  by  your  own  acknowledgement,  the 
first  five  centuries  breathed  the  true,  pure  doctrine  of 
the  apostles. 

XXXII.  Jesus  Christ  has  said  to  us;  Jlmen^  Amen,  I 
my  unlo  you:  except  you  eat  the  flesh  of  tlie  Son  of 
JWan,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  shall  not  have  life  in 
you.  And  you  gentlemen,  say;  eat  the  type  of  his  flesh, 
and  it  is  enough;  we  then  promise  you  life.  The 
intention  of  Jesus  Christ  was  to  communicate  himself  to 
all  his  followers,  and  thus  to  procure  for  them  a  fore- 


1 96  ANSWER  TO  THE 

taste  of  heaven  by  a  sacrament  which  no  mortal  could 
conceive,  much  less  invent.  And  this  heavenly  and 
mysterious  communication  you  reduce  to  the  manduca- 
tion  of  mere  animal  and  sensible  matter,  and  a  re- 
membrance which  leaves  the  heart  cold,  and  the 
soul  empty,  and  without  nourishment.  Jesus  Christ 
said;  this  is  my  body,  no,  you  reply  in  equivalent  terms, 
it  is  only  the  figure  of  your  body;  the  bread  has  only 
undergone  a  moral  change;  and  since  its  own  substance 
is  still  there,  yours  is  not  there  at  all.  Our  Church 
taught  by  the  apostles,  invoked  throughout  the  universe 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  change  by  his  grace, 
to  transform  and  transubstantiate  the  bread  into  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ:  but  if  we  are  to  listen  to  you, 
this  change,  transformation  or  transubstantiation  is  no 
better  than  a  polluted  source  of  idolatry  and  supersti- 
tion. 

XXXIII.  But  O  friends  and  separated  brethren!  If 
you  knew  how  afflicting  to  us  is  the  boldness  of  your 
thoughts;  if  you  knew  how  much  we  lament  the  endless 
evils  which  it  entails  on  yourselves  and  on  your  people; 
if  you  could  conceive  the  resources,  the  consolations 
and  delights,  of  which  you  deprive  so  many  souls 
redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  disposed  to 
consecrate  themselves  to  him  and  receive  him  with 
love,  if  they  were  otherwise  instructed!  Forgive  these 
admonitions,  dictated  solely  by  a  regard  for  your  inter- 
est, and  drawn  from  us  by  alarm  but  too  well  founded 
for  your  security;  return  to  the  creed  of  your  fore- 
fathers, to  that  received  by  all  the  Christians  of  the 
first  five  centuries:  believe  henceforth  with  them,  and 
according  to  our  uniform  teaching,  "that  after  con- 
secration, what  appears  to  your  eyes  bread,  is  not 
bread,  though  your  taste  judges  it  to  be  so;  but  that  it 
is  the  body  of  our  divine  Redeemer." 

XXXIV.  Unhappy  is  he,  who  having  heard  the 
truth,  persists  in  rejecting  it!  But  more  unhappy  he, 
who  after  having  discovered  his  errors,  obstinately 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  1  97 

continues  to  impose  tliem  upon  his  people!  There  are 
countries,  as  we  see  but  too  often,  where  it  is  deemed 
honourable  to  disfigure  the  truth,  and  to  embelish  error 
and  falsehood;  where  at  the  expense  of  so  doing,  men 
obtain  applause  and  emolument.  But  to  advance  in 
life,  and  soon  after  to  have  to  appear  before  the  last 
awful  tribunal,  laden  with  this  fatal  applause,  this 
perfiduous.  emolument; — great  God!  how  can  such  a 
thought  be  endured,  without  trouble  and  terror? 


193  ANSWER  TO  THE 


PART  THE  THIRD. 


SUCCINCT   REVIEW    OF    THE    "DIFFICULTIES    OF    RO- 
MANISM. 


I.  I  enter  with  painful  feelings  upon  this  last  and 
unpleasant  portion  of  my  defence.  How  sorrowful  is 
the  task  which  remains  for  me  to  fulfil!  Instead  of  the 
pleasure  and  consolation  which  I  should  have  found  in 
praising  the  accuracy,  uprightness,  and  candour  of  an 
antagonist,  I  find  myself  condemned  to  point  out  the 
faults  with  which  his  production  swarms;  sometimes 
infidelity  in  quotations,  or  design  in  suppressions;  at 
other  times  falsehood  in  allegations:  in  this  place,  hostile 
disposition  under  the  assumed  tone  of  regard  and  po- 
liteness; in  that — treachery,  speaking  the  language  of 
simple  ingenuousness;  and  in  a  third,  malevolence  and 
ill-will,  evaporating,  in  calumniatory  imputations.  I 
have  already  had  occasion  to  exhibit  several  reprehen- 
sible defects,  and  I  have  sometimes  chastised  them 
with  severity,  because  in  a  religious  controversy  I  re- 
gard them  as  disgraceful  prevarications.  I  shall  now 
recommence  a  rapid  review  of  the  pretended  Diffi- 
culties of  Romanism,  and  shall  more  or  less  lightly  visit 
upon  what  1  find  blameabie. 

I  have  dwelt  at  length  upon  the  questions  which 
occupy  my  first  and  second  parts;  because  they  are  of 
general  interest  to  Protestants  and  Catholics,  and  are 
decisive  against  the  Reformation.  As  to  those  faults 
of  the  author,  which  I  now  proceed  to  notice,  as  they 
more  personally  concern  him,  I  am  aware  that  they 
may  be  hut  of  feeble  interest  to  the  public.  1  should 
on  this  account  have  spared  myself  the  unpleasant 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  199 

task  of  bringing  them  forward,  had  I  not  feared  the 

dangerous  impressions  which  they  might  have  made 
on  readers  of  moderate  imformation.  My  natural  in- 
clination, in  accordance  with  charity,  would  have  led 
me  to  throw  a  veil  over  them:  but  the  interests  of  truth, 
and  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  impose  on  me  the 
duty  of  producing  them  to  the  light. 

II.  In  the  preface,  page  x,  line  17 — I  read  as  fol- 
lows: uTo  charge  a  Latin  (he  means  a  Catholic)  with 
what  he  holds  not,  and  then  gravely  to  confute  opinions 
which  all  the  while  he  strenuously  disclaims,  is  alike 
unfair  and  unprofitable."  A  maxim  which  is  admir- 
able, because  it  is  just.  If  it  were  honourable  to  ad- 
vance it,  it  was  surely  the  contrary  to  forget  it  and 
contradict  it,  as  Mr.  Faber  has  done  in  his  attacks  on 
Satisfaction — Invocation  of  Saints,  and  Veneration  of 
Images  and  Relics. 

INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT. 

HI.  At  page  6  "of  this  work  (Discussion  Jlmicale) 
the  main  object  is  evidently  the  proselytism  of  the 
English  laity."  This  reproach  is  for  ever  in  the  mouth 
of  the  author:  it  is  repeated  "usque  ad  nauseam"  from 
beginning  to  end  of  his  work.  My  object  is,  as  he  would 
represent  it,  to  deceive  the  English  laity  and  families 
travelling  on  the  Continent,  ineapable  from  circum- 
stances of  discovering  the  falsity  of  my  assertions  and 
proofs.  But  it  happens  that  this  work  destined  thus 
to  effect  conversions  on  the  Continent  was  first  prin- 
ted in  London,  and  in  great  measure  sold  in  that  ca- 
pital. But  what  is  most  surprising  is,  that  m  the  same 
page  the  author  had  just  made  this  observation:  "In  an 
epistle  prefixed  to  it,  this  important  work  is  dedicated 
to  the  clergy  of  all  the  Protestant  communions."  In 
fact,  the  epistle  begins  thus;  "Gentlemen,  I  cannot 
consent  to  give  the  publicity  demanded  of  me  to  a 
discussion  undertaken  and  conducted  in  the  secrecy  of 
confidence,  without  wishing  to  address  it  directly  to 


200  ANSWER  TO  THE 

you.  It  appears  to  me  just  that  I  should  present  it  in 
the  first  place  to  those  of  the  Reformed  communions, 
who  with  more  interest  to  become  acquainted  with  it, 
have  also  more  right  to  decide  upon  it.  Let  it  go 
forth  then,  and  arrive  where  I  desire;  let  it  be  exam- 
ined by  you,  and  receive  from  you  its  first  judgment." 
And  in  several  places  I  refer  my  supposed  corres- 
pondent to  the  doctors  of  his  own  Church.  Take  as 
an  instance,  the  following,  at  page  8,  vol.  2d,  u  Your 
divines,  as  well  as  ourselves,  have  the  catecheses  at 
hand;  but  I  imagine,  they  have  never  appeared  very 
anxious  to  make  you  acquainted  with  them.  Ask 
them  to  communicate  these  to  you,  and  tell  you  what 
they  think  of  them.  You  will  see  that  they  will  not 
comply  with  your  request  with  a  very  good  grace: 
and  in  truth,  to  speak  to  you  sincerely,  they  cannot  do 
it."  Or  another:  "For  the  rest,  I  am  far  from  wish- 
ing to  take  your  religion  by  surprise.  If  your  doubts 
are  not  yet  dissipated — if  there  remains  in  your  mind 
any  uncertainty  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  con- 
cerning the  Eucharist,  you  are  at  perfect  liberty  to 
communicate  this  letter,  as  well  as  those  preceding,  to 
such  of  your  doctors  as  you  may  please  to  consult." 
And  at  page  409,  vol.  2,  I  address  myself  exclusively 
to  the  established  Church  throughout  two  whole 
pages;  so  that  my  discussion  begins  and  ends  by  ex- 
citing the  attention  and  provoking  the  judgment  of 
your  doctors. 

This,  I  am  of  opinion,  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
narrow-minded  views,  the  miserable  artifice  which 
Mr.  Faber  would  impute  to  me,  when  he  supposes  my 
object  to  have  been  to  cast  dust  into  the  eyes  of  read- 
ers incapable  of  judging  accurately.  I  could  here 
adduce  twenty  persons  among  your  countrymen,  whom 
I  have  requested  at  various  times  to  submit  my  work 
to  the  examination  of  your  leading  divines.  I  have 
always  wished  it,  and  I  wish  it  still :  and  were  I  not 
fearful  of  acting  imprudently,  I  could  name   in  the 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  201 

church  of  England  persons  of  extensive  erudition,  and 
possessing  a  zeal  for  re-union,  alas !  too  rarely  met 
with,  who  have  expressed  a  wish  that  my  Discussion 
Amicale  were  dispersed  all  over  England.  For  my 
owu  part,  so  far  from  fearing  any  thing  from  real 
intelligence,  I  have  appealed  to  the  enlightened,  and 
now  appeal  to  them  again,  provided  they  be  accompa- 
nied with  good  faith. 

IV.  At  page  20,  Mr.  Faber  introduces  to  us  for  the 
first  time  his  favourite  chimaera  of  a  moral  change  of 
the  Eucharistic  bread,  which  returns  a  hundred  times 
upon  the  stage,  always  with  a  bad  grace,  and  ever 
exciting  the  pity  of  men  of  information.  The  learned 
Bachelor,  delighted  with  his  moral  change  in  the  Eu- 
charist, undertakes  to  prove  its  apostolic  origin  from 
the  anited  testimonies,  as  he  says,  of  St.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Augustin,  St. 
Athanasius,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Theodoret,  Pope 
Gelasius,  Facundus,  and  St.  Ephrem:  and  thus  he 
ranges  them  with,  some  small  deviation  from  chronolo- 
gical order;  but  no  matter.  I  have  demonstrated  pre- 
cisely the  contrary  assertion,  as  you  know,  by  the 
authority  of  the  very  same  Fathers,  as  I  may  here 
observe  by  the  way;  for  this  is  not  what  I  wish  to 
remark  upon  just  at  present.  Th#se  same  Fathers 
arc  clear,  express,  and  conclusive,  upon  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints :  consequently  on  that  question,  I  quote 
them  with  confidence.  And  what  reply  does  Mr. 
Faber  make  to  this  at  the  bottom  of  p.  238?  "The 
bishop  cannot  produce  a  single  authority,  for  the  invo- 
cation of  the  saints,  however  modified  from  the  two 
first  centuries."  This  sentence  stands  triumphantly 
in  small  capitals.  I  perfectly  understand  the  tactics 
of  the  Rector:  the  Fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  are  irrefragable  witnesses,  when  he  thinks 
them  favourable  to  his  opinions.  But  if  they  are 
opposed  to  him,  they  are  no  longer  of  any  value — then 
18 


£02  ANSWER  TO  THE 

he  must  have  apostolic  Fathers !     Behold  the  admira- 
ble equity  and  logic  of  this  gentleman ! 

CELIBACY. 

V.  He  has  devoted  pp.  25,  26,  and  27,  to  the  refu- 
tation of  the  prohibition  for  priests  to  marry.  This 
time  the  Bachelor  cannot  keep  his  temper;  he  is  quite 
warm,  and  for  three  deadly  pages  in  succession,  he 
vents  his  fire  and  bile  against  the  right  reverend  Fa- 
thers of  the  second  council  of  Lateran.  He  attempts 
no  less  a  task  than  to  prove  them  to  be  in  opposition  to 
St.  Paul.  I  have  already  proved  that  they  were  not 
But  I  will  here  go  farther,  and  in  one  word  exhibit  the 
conformity  between  the  strongest  expressions  of  the 
council,  and  those  of  the  sacred  scripture.  They  are 
these  :  "indignum  est  eos  (sacerdotes)  cubilibus  et  im- 
munditiis  deservire:"  these  are  words  which  provoked 
Mr.  Faber  so  furiously  against  the  Lateran  Fathers. 
But  let  him  cool  a  moment,  if  possible.  I  beseech 
him  and  his  readers  to  cast  their  eyes  upon  the  first 
four  verses  of  the  14th  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse. 
St.  John  enraptured  with  the  admirable  harmony  he 
has  just  heard,  informs  us  that  the  celestial  canticle 
was  sung  by  144,000  voices,  and  could  be  sung  by  no 
others.  The  Rector  and  many  others  with  him,  would 
have  attempted  it  in  vain.  But  from  what  mouths  did 
these  harmonious  sounds  proceed?  Of  what  kind  was 
this  class  of  privileged  singers?  Observe  well,  Mr. 
Faber :  uThese  are  they  who  were  not  defiled  with 
women:  for  they  are  virgins."  Hi  sunt  qui  cum  muli- 
erihus  non  sunt  coinouinati:  virgincs  enim  sunt. 
Now  cry  out  loudly  against  St.  John.  For  you  see 
that  he  has  divided  mankind  into  two  classes,  that  of 
virgins,  and  that  of  persons  defiled.  You  must  take 
your  choice:  if  you  are  no  longer  of  the  first,  you 
must  of  necessity  belong  to  the  second.  Well  then, 
would  it  not  have  been  better  to  have  spared  yourself 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  203 

a  sally  so  virulent  and  scandalous?  Would  it  not 
have  been  wiser  to  have  held  your  tongue  and  respect- 
fully bowed  your  bead  before  your  superiors  of  Late- 
ran,  who  so  far  surpassed  you  in  knowledge? 

TRADITION. 

VI.  In  chapter  third,  on  Tradition,  page  46,  the  re- 
proach is  personally  addressed  to  me.  uNo  accurate 
investigator  can  read  the  bishop's  remarks  on  these 
topics,  without  being  struck  with  the  singular  fallacies 
which  pervade  them:"  and  he  cites  my  fourth  letter, 
wherein  I  establish  the  necessity  of  tradition  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church.  Now  what  course 
does  the  Batchelor  take?  For  the  primitive  and  uni- 
versal Church,  of  which  I  speak,  he  substitutes  the 
Latin  church,  which  is  here  out  of  the  question.  He 
sets  out  with  this  ingenious  amendment  to  argue  more 
at  his  ease  against  the  reasoning,  which  he  imputes  to 
me.  Open  my  fourth  letter,  sir,  I  entreat  you:  you 
will  see  that  I  draw  my  proofs  from  St.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  St.  Basil,  and  St.  Chrysostom,  as  well  as 
from  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Augustin,  and  St.  Vin- 
cent of  Lerins;  and  in  the  first  rank  from  the  318 
bishops  of  the  first  council  of  Nice  in  the  affair  of 
rebaptization,  and  the  condemnation  of  Arius.  Let 
me  ask  you,  if  the  universal  and  primitive  Church 
could  be  marked  out  more  magnificently  than  by  that 
grand  ancient  council,  accepted  at  the  time  by  all 
Churches,  and  celebrated  ever  since  by  every  age  of 
Christianity.  And  yet  Mr.  Faber  has  the  effronte- 
ry to  insinuate  that  my  proofs  are  confined  to  the 
Latin  Church!  And  in  his  pretended  answers,  he  see* 
nothing  but  the  Latin  Church,  which  he  ridicules  with 
so  much  taste  and  good  manners.  Thus  by  fraudulent- 
ly substituting  a  word,  he  deceives  his  readers,  and 
6ets  himself  to  refute  what  I  never  said.  I  have  seen 
you  persuaded  that  Mr.  Faber  was  a  formidable  theo- 


204  ANSWER  TO  THE 

logian.  Now  judge  of  him  by  this  single  trait,  and 
rest  assured  that  he  is  not  even  an  honest,  fair-dealing 
man.  This  is  not  the  language  of  politeness,  I  am 
truly  grieved  to  own  it:  but.  if  you  can,  pray  tell  me 
how  to  expose  politely  so  disgraceful  a  manoeuvre. 

In  the  same  place,  No.  1 ,  you  read  as  follows:  "The 
Latin  Church,  as  we  all  know,  has  handed  down  to 
the  present  time  various  doctrines  and  various  prac- 
tices. Some  of  these  are  received  by  Protestants; 
others  of  them  are  rejected.  Now  this  electric  process 
is  censured  by  the  bishop;  and  he  requires  us,  as  we 
value  the  praise  of  consistency,  either  to  receive  the 
whole  mass  or  to  reject  the  whole  mass."  So  the 
Bachelor  makes  me  say:  and  it  is  always  the  Latin 
Church,  instead  of  the  universal  Church.  The  follow- 
ing is  what  I  really  said,  p.  196,  vol.  1,  referred  to  by 
him.  "Many  already  perceived  (in  the  early  contro- 
versies) that  in  the  violence  of  party  spirit,  things  had 
been  carried  too  far.  They  began  to  compound  for 
the  principle,  being  ready  to  admit  tradition  on  cer- 
tain points,  and  yet  rejecting  it  on  others,  in  honour  of 
the  reformation.  These  first  concessions  led  the  way 
for  others  more  free  and  less  circumscribed  Wise 
and  enlightened  minds,,  considering  calmly  the  precepts 
of  the  apostle,  the  spirit  of  the  primitive  Church,  and 
the  confidence,  which  must  be  yielded  to  the  piety  and 
fervour  of  the  primitive  ages,  to  the  deposition  and 
testimonies  of  all  those  holy  bishops,  and  illustrious 
martyrs  of  Jesus  Christ,  have  felt  the  irresistible  force 
of  the  proofs,  and  have  freely  adopted  the  ideas  and 
language  of  antiquity  on  the  subject  of  tradition." 
Now  do  I  speak  in  this  passage  of  the  Latin  Church 
Sk§ne,  as  the  Bachelor  would  have  his  readers  believe? 
Do  I  not  speak  in  express  terms  of  the  apostle,  the 
primitive  church,  and  the  first  ages?  And  in  express 
terms  of  all  their  holy  bishops,  and  their  illustrious 
martyrs?  Do  you  see  nothing  in  all  this  but  the  Latin 
Church?  And  could  any  one,  without  the  most  disgrace- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  205 

ful  falsity,  pretend  to  see  her  only,  who  is  neither  named 
nor  designated  exclusively?  Was  I  not  right  in  affirm- 
ing that  the  authority  of  the  primitive  ages,  as  I  de- 
scribed them,  ought  to  be  admitted  in  every  question; 
and  that  it  could  not  be  lawful  to  reject  it  on  some 
points  of  doctrine,  when  it  was  necessarily  admitted 
on  others? 

VII.  You  shall  now  see  another  specimen  of  bad 
faith  exhibited  by  the  Rector  at  page  51 — uIn  the 
judgment  of  the  bishop,  tradition  is  of  such  vital  im- 
portance, that  the  very  canon  of  scripture  depends 
upon  it.  By  renouncing,  therefore,  the  tradition  of  the 
Latin  Church,  we  effectively  invalidate  the  authority 
of  the  canon  of  scripture."  But  who  has  said  a  word 
to  him  about  the  tradition  of  the  Latin  Church?  I  have 
only  spoken  of  universal  and  primitive  tradition.  My 
words  are  these,  p.  177,  vol.  1 — "Most  positively  you 
are  indebted  to  tradition  for  the  scriptures,  you  have 
them  from  the  hand  of  tradition,  and  without  that,  you 
would  not  know  how  to  proceed  to  demonstrate  their 
authenticity:  for  it  can  only  be  proved  that  such  a 
book  is  of  such  an  apostle  or  evangelist,  by  its  having 
been  received  and  read  as  such  in  the  Churches." 
This  is  a  general  expression,  comprehending  at  once 
all  the  Churches  founded  by  the  apostles  and  their 
successors,  those  of  the  East,  no  less  than  those  of  the 
West,  the  Churches  in  fact  of  all  Christendom.  It  is 
clear  that  upon  their  testimony  I  build  the  authentici- 
ty of  our  scriptures,  and  not  on  the  single  authority  of 
the  See  of  Rome,  as  my  truth-telling  antagonist  makes 
me  do,  "on  the  naked  dogmatical  authority  of  the  See 
of  Rome."  He  knew  full  well  that  such  was  not  m\ 
opinion,  for  my  book  was  before  his  eyes;  but  it  suited 
his  purpose  to  make  those  believe  it,  who  are  unable 
to  read  my  work.  This  is  the  third  time  in  the  same 
chapter  that  he  deceives  his  readers  by  a  most  odious 
artifice.  If  I  have  not  formed  an  erroneous  estimate 
of  the  English  character,  Mr.  Faber  will  gaiu  no  cre- 
18* 


J06  ANSWER  TO  THE 

dit  among  his  countrymen  by  methods  60  dishonoura- 
ble, and  proceedings  so  far  below  a  man  of  real  recti- 
tude. 

REAL  PRESENCE. 

VIII.  In  the  fourth  chapter,  p.  56,  Mr.  Faber 
teaches  that  the  words,  this  is  rriy  body,  may  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  in  that 
of  the  Church  of  England;  in  the  literal  sense  on  the 
principles  of  grammar,  and  in  the  figurative  sense  on 
the  principles  of  rhetoric;  and  thereupon  he  goes  into 
confused  attempts  at  explanation.  A  body  present 
only  in  figure,  is  absent  in  reality.  But  according  to 
the  sense  of  your  Bachelor,  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
present  in  the  Eucharist  only  in  figure.  Therefore 
according  to  him,  it  is  absent  in  reality;  and  he  every 
where  labours  to  prove  it  so.  So  far  so  good.  But 
since  he  possesses  so  much  penetration,  as  to  perceive 
clearly  in  the  words,  this  is  my  body,  the  real  absence 
of  that  body,  how  could  he  begin  his  chapter  by  telling 
us  that  the  two  Churches,  ours  and  his  own,  both  admit 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence?  "The  disagreement 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
chiefly  respects  the  supposed  process  denominated 
transubstantiaiion  ....  With  respect  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence,  they  both  hold  it."  What!  one 
believes  in  the  real  presence  of  her  Saviour,  the  other 
in  his  real  absence,  and  yet  both  hold  the  same  doc- 
trine! The  Catholics  reject  the  figure,  to  embrace  the 
reality,  the  modern  Anglicans  have  set  aside  the  reality, 
to  attach  themselves  to  the  figure;  and  yet  both  are 
said  to  maintain  the  dogma  of  the  real  presence,  each 
party  remaining  on  their  own  side!  What  an  extrava- 
gant assertion!  What  surpassing  absurdity!  Was 
ever  any  thing  like  it  thought  or  said  before?     Can  a 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  207 

man  be  permitted  thus  to  eontradict  himself,  and  trifle 
to  this  degree  with  his  readers? 

IX.  At  p.  66,  it  is  curious  to  hear  him  again:  "If, 
during  the  term  of  several  centuries,  we  shall  find  that 
the  figurative  interpretation  was  the  interpretation 
adopted  by  the  early  Catholic  Church,  we  shall  possess 
a  moral  certainty  of  its  truth."  You  see  plainly  what 
Mr.  Faber  wishes  to  find  in  the  primitive  Church;  he 
is  running  after  his  figurative  sense;  he  would  prove  it 
morally  certain.  Then  he  did  not  speak  truth;  when 
he  declared  that  he  maintained  like  ourselves,  the  dog- 
ma of  reality.  Here  he  extends  the  primitive  Church 
to  a  "term  of  several  centuries,"  and  he  is  right  in  so 
doing.  In  other  places  he  confines  it  to  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  there  he  is  wrong.  You  see,  sir,  we  have 
only  to  confront  him  with  himself,  to  exhibit  endless 
contradiction  between  the  opposite  notions,  which  he 
alternately  adopts. 

X.  In  the  note  at  p.  71,  the  passage  of  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  presents  some  examples  of  internal  changes 
were  none  appears  outwardly:  such  as  the  stones  of 
consecrated  altars,  which  still  preserve  the  same  qual- 
ities apparent  to  the  senses:  such  as  the  laic,  who  by 
consecration  and  unction  of  the  holy  oil  is  changed  into 
a  priest,  without  his  ceasing  to  appear  the  same  as  he 
was  externally:  such  is  the  Eucharist,  in  which  the 
change  of  the  bread  is  not  preserved  outwardly. 
Under  this  relation,  it  is  most  justly,  classed  with  the 
other  examples;  and  yet,  because  differently  from  the 
other  changes  mentioned,  that  of  the  Eucharistic  bread 
affects  the  substance,  St.  Gregory  is  careful  to  declare 
that  expressly;  fearing  no  doubt,  that  some  on  seeing 
nothing  more  in  that  than  in  the  other  objects  brought 
in  comparison,  might  wrongly  interpret  his  opinion. — 
And  this  is  precisely  what  has  happened  to  Mr.  Faber, 
and  he  would  have  escaped  it,  if  he  had  weighed 
attentively  these  words,  which  he  transcribed  without 
understanding  them;  "but,  when  it  has  been  consecra- 


208  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ted  in  the  holy  mystery,  it  becomes,  and  is  called  the 
body  of  Christ^  Mr.  Faber  traced  this  sentence  with 
his  hand;  but  his  tongue  would  not  pronounce  it.  If 
he  consent  to  do  so,  God  be  praised!  I  ask  no  more  of 
him  in  this  place.  For  the  rest,  I  thank  him  for  hav- 
ing furnished  me  with  a  proof,  in  the  very  passage, 
which  he  deemed  favourable  to  his  own  opinion. 

XL  I  know  not,  dear  sir,  if  you  will  agree  with  me, 
but  I  am  convinced  that  in  the  important  concerns  of 
salvation,  it  is  highly  criminal  to  present  falsehood  to 
one's  readers'  with  the  confidence  with  which  an  hon- 
ourable man  would  present  truth.  Open  Mr.  Faber's 
work  at  p.  73  and  read  at  the  top  the  following  dog- 
matical sentence  of  two  members;  "Whenever  the 
Fathers  descend  to  the  strictness  of  explanatory  defini- 
tion, they  plainly  tell  us,  again  and  again,  that  the 
consecrated  elements  are  only  the  types,  or  figures,  or 
syvibols,  allegorical  images  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ:  (first  member  of  the  sentence)  and,  not  unfre- 
quently,  as  if  anxious  to  remove  all  possibility  of  mis- 
apprehension, they  assure  us  in  express  terms,  that  ice 
do  not  eat  the  literal  body,  and  that  we  do  not  drink  the 
literal  blood  of  Christ,  when  we  participate  of  the 
blessed  Eucharist."  (Second  member.)  To  eat  the 
body  and  drink  the  blood  in  the  literal  sense;  is  to  eat 
and  drink  according  to  the  gross  idea  of  the  Caphar- 
naites;  a  carnal  and  barbarous  manducation,  which  all 
ages  and  all  Christian  people  have  held  in  horror;  and 
of  which  consequently  there  can  be  no  question 
between  us.  But  how  can  the  Fathers  be  said  to  have 
taught  that  after  consecration  there  is"  nothing  but  types 
and  figures  in  the  Holy  Eucharist;  they  who  inform  us 
that  it  was  adored  by  ail  the  faithful  previous  to  their 
receiving  it?  They  who  have  told  us  that  not  to  adore 
it  would  be  a  sin?  They  who  adored  it  as  often  as  they 
celebrated  the  liturgy  at  the  head  of  the  faithful?  You 
have  seen,  sir,  multiplied  and  demonstrative  proofs  of 
the  belief  of  the  Fathers  in  the  reality  of  the  body  and 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  209 

blood  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar.  The  truth  then  is, 
that  in  their  catccheses  they  taught  it  with  as  much  en- 
ergy and  clearness  as  we  could  do,  and  that  they  spoke 
of  it  without  disguise,  when  they  could  do  so  without 
betraying  the  secret.  But  it  is  falsehood  to  assert  that, 
even  when  they  concealed  the  mystery,  they  ever 
went  so  far  as  to  say  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  con- 
secrated elements  but  types,  or  figures,  or  symbols  of 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  Never,  never  did  such  ex- 
pressions exclusively  negative  proceed  from  their  lips; 
never  did  their  hands  write  them.  But  assuredly  they 
would  have  written  and  spoken  them  a  thousand  times, 
had  they  corresponded  with  their  belief.  Then  Mr. 
Faber  might  have  victoriously  brought  forth  the  numer- 
ous passages.  But  neither  he,  nor  any  other  has  ever 
discovered  them:  they  have  not  produced,  nor  will  they 
ever  produce  a  single  one.  And  yet  this  unfortunate 
man  has  dared  to  affirm  to  his  countrymen,  and  before 
God,  that  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  were  full  of  pas- 
sages of  that  description.  How  much  do  I  feel  for  his 
readers!  For  they  naturally  give  credit  to  the  minister 
who  defends  their  creed,  and  presents  them,  with  the 
greatest  assurance,  assertions  which  they  can  neither 
suspect  nor  discover  to  be  false.  O!  if  I  could  make 
my  voice  be  heard  over  all  England,  I  would^say  to  its 
generous  people:  "Be  you  our  judges!  Pronounce 
between  one  doctrine,  which  can  only  be  attacked  by 
continual  outrages'against  truth,  and  another,  which  can 
only  be  defended  by  such  disgraceful  artifices." 

XII.  If  Mr.  Faber  is  so  little  scrupulous  with  the 
Holy  Fathers,  and  takes  the  liberty  of  making  them 
say  what  they  never  said  nor  thought,  I  need  not  be 
surprised  to  find  him  allowing  himself  the  liberty  with 
me  to  suppress  and  change  my  words,  and  to  put  his 
own  into  my  mouth.  It  is  true  that  to  give  currency 
to  this  habitual  species  of  impoliteness,  he  takes  care 
to  associate  with  it  immediately  some  complimentary 
epithet:  or  else  to  add,  as  at  page  100,  that  my  argu- 


210  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ment  appears  to  him  managed  "with  no  small  dexter- 
ity;" while  it  appears  to  me,  in  his  exposition  of  it, 
insupportably  clumsy  and  ill-managed.  I  have  fre- 
quently had  occasion  to  notice  parts  of  my  book, 
which  he  has  metamorphosed  in  his  own  peculiar 
manner.  It  would  be  tedious  to  follow  him  in  all  his 
turns,  and  to  expose  all  the  artifices  which  he  allows 
himself  in  this  way;  it  is  a  poor  and  pitiful  resource  for 
those,  who  are  determined  at  all  hazards  to  defend  a 
desperate  cause,  and  who  would  have  no  rational 
reply  to  make,  were  they  not  to  begin  by  disfiguring 
the  arguments,  which  they  undertake  to  refute. 

XIII.  One  of  his  ar/ifices  however  richly  deserves 
to  be  exposed;  for  I  must  own  that  the  bold  mendacity 
which  distinguishes  it  would  make  it  of  itself  suffice  to 
establish  its  author's  reputation.  "The  theory  of  the 
bishop,"  says  he,  p.  98,  as  might  be  anticipated  from 
the  purport  of  his  work,  is  this.  The  secret  discipline 
of  the  primitive  Church  had  for  its  sole  cause  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation:  for,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  it  could  not  possibly  have  had  any  other  cause 
than  that  which  is  thus  assigned  to  it.  Hence  it  will 
follow,  that  the  grand  and  exclusive  and  special  secret 
of  the  Christian  mysteries  was  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation." Here  are  as  many  falsities  almost  as 
words.  I  speak  of  the  real  presence,  Mr.  Fa- 
ber  puts  in  place  of  that,  transubstantiation.  h  say 
that  the  secret  discipline  relative  to  the  Eucharist 
had  no  other,  and  could  have  no  other  cause  than 
that  of  the  real  presence:  he  makes  me  say  that 
the  "secret  discipline  of  the  primitive  Church  had  for 
its  sole  cause  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation."  After 
advancing  this  in  my  name,  he  makes  me  conclude 
that  "the  grand,  and  exclusive,  and  special  secret  of  the 
Christian  mysteries  was  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion." This  last  word  occurs  twice  in  his  two  senten- 
ces, while  it  is  only  found  once  in  my  whole  chapter, 
I  confine  myself  to  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist,  and 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  211 

he  represents  me  us  taking  in  all  the  mysteries  of 
Christianity. 

Mr.  Faber  addressing  himself  particularly  to  those 
of  his  countrymen  who  are  ignorant  of  French,  affects 
great  impartiality  in  quoting  a  passage  of  my  book, 
which  proves  that  I  speak  truth,  and  he  falsehood. 
He  adduces  it  as  follows  in  a  note  at  p.  98:  aOr  je  me 
flatte  a  present,  Monsieur,  que  vous  voyez  clairement 
que  la  discipline  du  secret  sur  PEucharistie  a  eu  effec- 
tivement  le  dogme  de  la  realite  pour  cause,  et  n'a  pu 
en  avoir  cPautre."  I  appeal  to  any  one  who  knows 
French,  whether  this  passage  is  susceptible  of  the 
sense  given  to  it  by  Mr.  Faber.  Who  could  discover 
in  it  transubstantiation?  I  am  only  speaking  of  the  real 
presence;  and  who  could  find  there  the  mysteries  of 
Christianity?  I  speak  only  of  the  real  presence;  I  give 
that  as  the  cause  of  the  secret  discipline  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Eucharist.  For  all  that  is  exalted  in  this 
august  sacrament  arises  from  the  reality  of  the  pre- 
sence. But  whence  did  the  Rev.  Bachelor  draw  the 
conclusion  which  he  attributes  to  me,  if  not,  like  the 
rest,  from  the  delirium  of  a  capricious  and  over-heated 
imagination? 

There  only  could  he  further  have  read  that  the  real 
presence  was  the  sole  cause  of  the  secret  discipline. 
This  assertion  is  not  mine.  I  distinctly  wrote  the 
contrary  assertion,  vol.  1,  p.  344,  in  these  words:  ul 
purpose  to  examine  thoroughly  with  you,  the  discipline 
regarding  the  inviolable  secrecy,  which  all  the  faithful 
observed  on  the  sacraments,  and  especially  on  the 
sacrament  of  the  altar."  I  knew  well  at  the  same  time 
that  this  secret  discipline  concealed  from  the  pagans 
the  mysteries  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.  I  might 
have  said  therefore,  that  it  extended  to  both  these 
mysteries,  as  well  as  to  all  the  sacraments.  I  did  not 
say  it,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  I  was  not  writing  the 
general  history  of  the  discipline  in  question.  My  sole 
object  being  to  consider  it  exclusively  in  relation  to 


212  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  Eucharist,  my  duty  was  to  confine  myself  to  my 
subject;  and  not  to  run  out  unseasonably  into  a  diffuse 
digression  on  the  several  other  subjects  comprised  under 
the  law  of  secrecy. 

XIV.  At  page  100,  the  Bachelor  returns  to  the 
charge  that  all  my  argument  is  built  upon  the  ruinous 
foundation,  that  "the  true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was 
the  exclusive  secret  of  the  Christian  mysteries."  He 
supports  the  contrary  with  perfect  justice:  but  how 
does  that  affect  me?  Whom  is  he  combating?  I  never 
advanced  any  such  thing.  He  goes  on  further  to  maintain 
that  "the  true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was  neither 
the  exclusive  secret  of  the  mysteries,  nor  yet  even 
their  principal  secret."  How  again  am  I  concerned 
in  this?  Whom  is  he  attacking  now?  There  is  not  a 
syllable  of  all  this  in  any  part  of  my  book.  It  appears 
to  have  suited  his  purpose  to  impute  to  me  the  expres- 
sions exclusive  and  principal  secret:  but  once  again,  I 
disclaim  them,  they  are  not  mine.  They  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  not  to  the 
Discussion  Jlmicale;  and  for  Heaven's  sake,  let  eacli 
keep  his  own  property  where  he  finds  it! 

XV.  Mr.  Faber  here  enters  upon  the  exposition  of 
the  catecheses  of  St.  Cyril;  of  which  the  first  eighteen 
are  for  the  catechumens,  the  five  last  for  the  neophytes. 
The  former  often  speak  upon  the  Trinity,  and  present 
but  one  short  though  powerful  allusion  to  the  Eucha- 
rist,* which  was  developed  at  a  later  period  to  the 

*  It  X9  as  follows:  "If  the  Lord  shall  deem  thee  worthy,  thou 
ihalt  hereafter  know,  that  the  body  of  Christ,  according  to  the 
gospel,  sustains  the  type  of  bread."  Mr.  Faber  declares  it  diffi- 
cult to  say  what  these  words  can  mean,  unless  "that  the  bread  is 
a  type,  or  symbol,  or  figure,  or  representation  of  Christ's  body." 
But  this  is  precisely  reversing  the  declaration  of  St.  Cyril.  The 
sentence  is  quite  clear  to  any  one  initiated:  the  divine  substance 
sustains  the  appearance  of  bread,  its  qualities,  apparent  to  the 
senses,  sustain  the  figure,  or  type,  or  representation  of  bread.  In 
St.  Cyril,  it  is  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  which  represents  the  image 
of  bread:  in  Mr.  Faber,  it  is  the  bread  which  represents  the  body 
of  Jeeus  Christ. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  213 

newly-baptized  in  two  of  the  five  cateclieses,  which 
were  intended  for  them.  Every  one  knows  that  bap- 
tism is  conferred  in  the  name  of  the  most  Holy  Trini- 
ty. This  established,  the  observation  of  the  Rector 
becomes  absolutely  silly.  He  is  quite  surprised  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  should  be  so  often  discussed 
before  those  who  were  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity!  And  he  appears  to  wonder  that  there 
should  be  but  a  single  short  hint  of  the  Eucharist,  be- 
fore those  from  whom  the  law  required  it  to  be  con- 
cealed till  after  their  baptism!  But  we  have  a  new 
proof  of  his  erudition  in  another  way.  The  Bachelor 
remarks  that  in  the  last  of  the  cateclieses,  mention 
is  made  of  prayers  for  the  dead:  "which,"  he  most 
learnedly  observes,  "had  then  begun  to  be  partially 
introduced,  which  Cyril  owns  were  objected  to  by 
many,  &c."  He  was  not  aware  then  that  this  practice 
is  in  all  the  liturgies;  a  certain  proof  of  its  apostolicity. 
As  to  the  great  opposition  made  to  it  in  the  fourth 
century,  that  is  a  pure  fiction.  For  we  cannot  make 
any  account  of  such  men  as  Aerius  and  Vigilantius, 
who  were  condemned  at  the  time  by  all  the  churches 
in  the  world. 

XVI.  After  a  long  digression  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  which  is  no  way  connected  with  my  Discus- 
sion Amicale,  Mr.  Faber  triumphantly  concludes  that 
the  Eucharist  was  neither  the  exclusive  nor  the  princi- 
pal secret  of  the  Christians.  I  wish  him  joy  of  his 
discovery;  I  am  noway  concerned  with  the  ten  deadly 
pages  of  this  dissertation.  But  at  page  115  he  at 
length  arrives  at  the  point;  he  announces  his  intention 
to  prove  that  the  real  presence — transubstantiation 
according  to  him,  for  he  always  uses  one  word  for  the 
other — "was  not  taught  at  all  in  the  mysteries,  even 
under  the  form  of  the  very  smallest  and  least  important 
secret."  O !  now  I  feel  interested.  I  trust  you  know 
by  this  time  what  to  believe  on  this  question :  and  I 
am  convinced  that  the  Bachelor  will  proceed  more 
19 


214  ANSWER  TO  THE 

carefully,  if  he  returns  to  the  subject.  I  give  up  my 
proofs  to  him,  to  the  divines  of  his  Church,  to  all  those 
of  the  •  Protestant  Communions  who  accord  with  him 
in  opinion  against  the  real  presence  of  our  divine 
Saviour  in  his  most  holy  sacrament  of  the  altar.  They 
will  labour  in  vain  to  demolish  them. 

Mr.  Faber  exhibits  and  admires  with  reason  the 
secret  discipline,  as  one  of  the  most  curious  subjects 
of  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  Yet  he  does  not  appear  to 
have  searched  it  deeply.  Had  he  done  so,  it  would 
have  suggested  to  him  very  dhTerent  reflections.  I 
even  suspect  that  before  the  appearance  of  the  Dis- 
cussion Jlmicale,  he  was  very  little  acquainted  with 
that  venerable  and  ancient  law  of  secrecy,  sealed  by 
the  blood  of  many  martyrs;  which  is  a  mine  rich  in 
proofs  on  the  most  important  points  called  in  question 
by  the  ignorant  temerity  of  these  latter  ages.  I  am 
far  from  having  exhausted  it:  others  will  penetrate  yet 
further  into  it.  I  applaud  their  success  beforehand, 
happy  in  having  pointed  out  the  opening,  and  put  them 
in  the  way. 

XVII.  In  my  Discussion  Jlmicale  I  seriously  chal- 
lenged all  the  Sacramentarians,  and  I  now  challenge 
them  again,  with  Mr.  Faber  at  their  head,  and  with 
him  all  his  brethren  of  the  Church  of  England  since 
the  year  1662,  to  declare  to  us  plainly  why  the  primi- 
tive Church  ordained  an  inviolable  secrecy  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Eucharist.  Let  us  allow  them  time  to  con- 
sider their  answer  well.  They  will  take  a  long  time, 
I  am  afraid,  before  they  produce  one  satisfactory. 
Every  one  knows  that  the  primitive  Church  had 
strictly  enjoined  to  conceal  from  the  infidels  what  was 
said  and  done  in  her  assemblies,  from  which  the  pro- 
fane were  excluded.  After  the  lapse  of  so  many 
ages,  how  are  we  to  discover  what  the  faithful  prac- 
tised there  among  themselves  for  so  long  a  period, 
unknown  to  the  uninitiated?  When  the  liturgies  ap- 
peared in  open  day,  they  made  it  known  to  the  whole 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  215 

world.     They  displayed  to  the  eyes  of  all,  the  interior 
of  these  holy  assemblies.   They  indicate  even  at  this  day 
the  prayers,  the  acts  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity,   the 
thanksgivings,  which  preceded,  accompanied,  and  fol- 
lowed the  bloodless  sacrifice  of  the  new  covenant.     I 
have  given  abundant  details  of  these  things  in  my  ninth 
letter,  from  p.  388  to  p.  445  of  my  first  volume.     Mr. 
Faber  makes  mention  of  this  letter,  he  must  at  least 
have  gone  through  it,  and  yet,  what  does  he  say  of  it? 
Nothing,  sir:  he  does  not  dare  to  look  steadily  upon 
the  liturgies,  their  brilliancy  dazzles  his  visionary  or- 
gans, he  turns  away  from  them,  and  runs  for  refuge  to 
mere  common-place   observations.     You    have    seen 
these  refuted  in  the  second  part  of  the  present  work. 
XVIII.  I  had  remarked  that  the  Fathers  laid  open 
the  mystery  clearly  to  the  faithful,  while  they  con- 
cealed it  from  the  uninitiated.     Mr.  Faber,  at  p.  135, 
reproaches  me  with  having  attributed  duplicity  to  the 
Holy  Fathers,  both  in  principle  and  practice :  he  ac- 
cuses  me  of  having  represented   them  as  guilty  of 
direct  falsehood.     "To  the  mysta,  they  declare,  with- 
out reserve,  the  grand  secret  of  transubstantiation :" 
(he  ought  to  have  said,  of  the  real  presence;  he  regu- 
larly uses  the  wrong  word  in  this  matter,)  "to  the  pa- 
gans and  catechumens,  they  propound  the  symbolical 
or   allegorical  nature  of  the   consecrated   elements; 
assuring  them,  that  these  elements  are  only  types,  or 
figures,  or  representations  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ."     This  assertion  is  completely  false;  the  great 
falsehood  lies  in  the  word  only  inserted  by  Mr.  Faber: 
I  have  shown  this  repeatedly.     I  will  merely  in  this 
place  justify  the  process  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  and  ac- 
quit them  of  falsehood  with  the  support  of  a  decision 
of  St.  Augustin,  who  was  apparently  quite  as  well 
versed  in  morality  as   the  Rector  of  Long  Newton. 
"He  who  seeks  simplicity  of  heart,  ought  not  to  con- 
sider himself  culpable,  if  he  conceal  something  which 
the  man  from  wrhom  he  conceals  it,  could  not  under- 


216  ANSWER  TO  THE 

stand.  Nor  is  it  hence  to  be  inferred  that  it  is  lawful 
to  lie.  For  it  does  not  follow  that  we  speak  false- 
hood, when  we  conceal  the  truth.  "*  This  is  precise- 
ly the  case  with  the  ancient  Fathers.  They  had  no 
need  of  reserve  or  caution  with  regard  to  the  faithful; 
therefore  they  spoke  the  whole  truth  to  them  openly. 
But  it  was  quite  otherwise  with  respect  to  the  unin- 
itiated, to  whom  it  was  forbidden  to  reveal  the  mys- 
tery, therefore  before  them  they  confined  themselves 
to  the  exterior  part  of  the  Eucharist.  They  said  then 
that  it  was  the  sign,  the  figure,  the  sacrament  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ :  but  they  never  said  that  it  was 
only  the  figure  of  the  body,  as  Mr.  Faber  loudly  de- 
clares, and  wishes  to  persuade  his  readers.  Thus  did 
the  Fathers  fulfil  all  justice;  strong  nourishment  for 
grown  up  men;  milk  for  children  and  the  infirm. 
What  Mr.  Faber  calls  "contrivance,"  "dexterity," 
"falsehood,"  was  no  more  than  prudence,  charity, 
and  obedience  to  the  divine  and  ecclesiastical  law. 
The  Catholic  finds  every  thing  intelligible,  connected, 
and  consistent  in  this  method  of  the  Holy  Fathers ;  but 
to  the  Sacramentarian  all  is  confusion,  embarrassment, 
and  contradiction :  a  proof  that  the  belief  of  Catholics 
is  true,  and  that  of  the  Sacramentarians  false. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  FIRST  REFORMERS. 

XIX.  Passing  on  to  p.  150  I  find  another  reproach 
which  Mr.  Faber  thinks  proper  to  bring  against  me 
with  his  usual  rectitude  of  mind.  He  accuses  me  of 
being  "superfluously  copious,"  because  I  exposed  Lu- 
ther, Zwinglius,  and  Calvin  at  open  war  with  each 
other.     But  how  could  I  pass  over  in  silence  the  three 

•"Qui  simplex  cor  habere  appetit,  non  debet  sibi  reus  videri, 
si  aliquid  occultat  quod  ille,  cui  occultatur,  capere  non  potest. 
Nee  ex  eo  arbitrandum  est  licere  mentiri.  Non  enim  est  conse- 
quens,  ut  cum  verum  occultatur,  falsum  dicatur." — S.  Jlugust. 
contra  Mendaciwn.     Cap.  x. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  217 

champions  of  the  reformation  in  a  work  on  the  Church 
of  England  in  particular,  tfnd  the  Reformation  in  gen- 
eral? I  am  perfectly  aware  that  you  do  not  recognize 
the  spiritual  supremacy  of  any  one  of  these  three:  but 
if  you  acknowledge  no.  one  of  them  as  a  Father,  all 
three  must  feel  pride  in  claiming  you  as  their  children. 
And  for  this  reason :  you  have  borrowed  from  one  and 
the  other,  and  from  their  several  contributions  arose 
your  body  of  doctrine,  which  you  have  worked  up 
and  established  under  the  form  which  suited  your  con- 
venience* You  are  not  properly  speaking,  a  Luthe- 
ran, nor  a  Zwinglian,  nor  a  Calvinist  in  particular,  but 
in  a  general  point  of  view,  you  are  all  three — Luthe- 
rans, Zwinglians,  and  Calvinists.  Not  so ;  exclaims 
Mr.  Faber,  "we  are  Catholics  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
no  less  than  the  bishop  of  Aire  (Strasbourg)  is  a  Ca- 
tholic of  the  Gallican  Church."  This  was  very  true 
before  the  fatal  introduction  of  your  King  Henry  to 
Ann  Boleyn;  since  that,  your  situation  is  altered.  A 
man  is  no  longer  a  Catholic  when  he  departs  from 
unity.  You  say  in  the  creed,  "  I  believe  in  one  .... 
Catholic  Church."  Return  then  to  this  one  Catholic 
Church,  if  you  wish  to  be  Catholics  in  England,  as  we 
are  in  France. 

XX.  "Certainly,"  continues  our  author,  "we  honour 
Luther  and  Calvin  and  Zwingle  for  their  works'  sake" 
"without  feeling  ourselves  pledged  to  act  as  um- 
pires between  these  three  enwient  foreigners."  It  be- 
comes then  incumbent  on  me  to  give  the  reader  a  just 
idea  of  these  three  heroes,  on  whom  he  respectfully 

•I  do  not  even  except  the  episcopacy  among  you.  The  name 
is  of  little  consequence;  the  superintendants  of  Germany,  and  the 
bishops  of  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  England,  are  in  reality  on  a 
similar  footing.  They  labour  under  the  same  doubts  as  to  the 
validity  of  their  ordinations,  the  same  certain  nullity  of  their 
spiritual  jurisdiction.  For  schism  has  abrogated  that  every  where 
alike;  in  the  same  manner  as  the  revolt  of  every  embassador  or 
minister  puts  an  end  to  the  power  which  he  held  from  his  sove- 
reign. 

19* 


g[g  ANSWER  TO  THE 

bestows  the  title  of  eminent.  This  may  lead  me  to 
some  length,  but  it  is  necessary.  Luther  claims  the 
first  place;  UI  burn,"  says  he,  "with  a  thousand  fires 
in  a  flesh  untamed.  I  feel  excited  towards  women 
with  a  fury  which  borders  upon  madness.  I,  who 
ought  to  be  fervent  in  spirit,  am  only  fervent  in  impu- 
rity."* "Strong  in  my  knowledge,  I  would  not  yield 
either  to  Emperor,  King  or  Devil:  no,  not  even  to  the 
whole  universe."t  His  cherished  disciple  informs  us 
that  Luther  knew  his  immorality  so  well,  that  he  wish- 
ed to  be  removed  from  the  ministry  of  preaching. J  "I 
tremble,"  wrote  Melancthon,"  when  I  think  of  the  pas- 
sions of  Luther;  they  do  not  yield  in  violence  to  the 
fury  of  Hercules."§  uThis  man,"  says  one  of  his  con- 
temporaries of  the  reformation,  "is  absolutely  furious. 
He  does  not  cease  to  combat  the  truth  against  all  jus- 
tice, and  even  against  the  cry  of  his  own  conscience. "|| 
"He  is  inflated  with  pride  and  arrogance,  and  seduced 
by  Satan."^f  "Yes  Satan  has  so  made  himself  master 
of  Luther,  as  to  make  us  believe  that  he  is  determined 
to  possess  him  entirely. "##  "He  has  written  all  his 
books  by  the  impulse  and  under  the  dictation  of  the 
Devil,  with  whom  he  had  an  interview,  and  who  in 
the  struggle  appears  to  have  overthrown  him  with 
victorious  argument."ft  "Truly,"  said  Calvin,  "Lu- 
ther is  very  wicked.  Would  to  God  that  he  had  taken 
care  to  put  more  restraint  upon  the  intemperance  which 
rages  on  all  sides  of  him!  Would  to  God  that  he  had 
thought  more  of  gaining  a  true  knowledge  of  his  vices."JJ 
O  what  an  honourable  and  eminent  personage! 

*  Luther's  Tahle-Talk. 

}His  reply  to  the  King  of  England. 

XSleiden,bookxi.  an.  1520. 

^Letter  to  Theodore. 

\\Hospinian. 

^(Ecolampadius. 

**Zwinglius. 

]\The  ch.  of  Zurich  against  the  Confess,  of  Luther,  p.  61. 

X\Qu>oted%n  C.  Schlussenberg. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  219 

XXI.  Now  let  the  second  appear  on  the  stage. 
Zwinglius  speaks  thus  of  himself:  "I  cannot  conceal 
the  fire  which  burns  me,  and  urges  me  to  incontinen- 
cy;  since  it  is  true  that  its  eilccts  have  brought  upon 
me  already  but  too  many  disgraceful  reproaches 
among  the- churches."*  Luther  declared  openly  that 
Zwinglius  was  the  progeny  of  hell  (what  an  origin  for 
the  honourable  and  eminent  personage  of  Mr.  Faber!) 
an  associate  of  Arius,  a  man  not  deserving  to  be  pray- 
ed for  by  any  one.f  "Zwinglius"  Luther  wrote,  "is 
dead  and  damned,  wishing  like  a  thief  and  a  seditious 
man  to  force  others  by  arms  to  follow  his  error."! 
Brentius,  whom  Bp.  Jewell  called  the  grave  and  learn- 
ed old  man,  declares  that  "the  doctrines  of  Zwinglius 
are  diabolical,  full  of  impieties,  depravity  and  calum- 
nies; that  the  error  of  Zwinglius  on  the  Eucharist  (that 
of  a  figurative  presence,  so  dear'to  Mr.  Faber,)  led  to 
many  others  still  more  sacrilegious."§  ''Blessed  is  the 
man  who  hath  not  gone  into  the  council  of  the  Sacra- 
mentarians  (the  partisans  of  the  figurative  sense,  such 
as  the  modern  Anglicans)  blessed  is  the  man  who  hath 
not  stood  in  the  way  of  the  Zwinglians,  nor  sat  in  the 
chair  of  Zurich!  You  understand  what  I  mean."j| 
Such  in  doctrine  and  deeds  was  that  Zwinglius,  in  these 
days  so  honourable  and  eminent  in  the  eyes  of  Mr. 
Faber! 

XXII.  Let  us  complete  the  sketch  of  this  noble  and 
pious  triumvirate  by  a  few  traits  of  Calvin.  uDo  not 
scruple,"  he  wrote  to  one  of  his  powerful  friends,  "torid 

the  country  of  those  zealous  fanatics,  who would 

represent  our  belief  as  a  reverie.  Such  monsters  ought 
to  be  smothered,  as  I  did  in  the  execution  of  the  Span- 
iard, Michael  Servetus.     For  the  future,  I  do  not  ima- 

*Jn  Parenes.  adHelvet.  fol.  44. 

fTome  2,  fol.  36,  quoted  in  Floyimond. 

\Ibid. 

^Brentius  in  rtcog.  Proph.  et  Jlpost.  in  fine. 

]\Luther.  Ep.  and  Jacob,  presb. 


£20  ANSWER  TO  THE 

gine  that  any  one  will  do  such  a  thing."  "Calvin,  I 
know,  is  violent  and  perverse;  so  much  the  better. 
That  is  the  man  we  want  to  promote  our  cause."* 
"Calvin,"  said  Bucer,  "is  a  real  mad  dog.  That  man 
is  bad;  and  judges  of  people,  according  to  his  own 
love  or  hatred  of  them."  In  1588  there  appeared  in 
London  a  writing  approved  by  the  Anglican  bishopsf 
against  the  Calvinist  sect.  Calvin  and  Beza.  are  there- 
in represented  as  proud,  intolerant  men,  who,  by  open 
revolt  against  their  lawful  prince,  had  established  their 
gospel,  and  assumed  the  government  of  the  churches 
with  a  tyranny  more  odious  than  that,  with  which  they 
so  often  reproached  the  sovereign  pontiffs.  The  Eng- 
lish bishops  protest  before  Almighty  God  that  among  all 
the  texts  of  scripture  cited  by  Calvin  or  his  disciples  in 
favour  of  the  Church  of  Geneva  against  the  Church  of 
England,  (which  at  that  time  believed  in  the  real  pre- 
sence) there  is  not  one  which  is  not  distorted  to  a  sense 
unknown  to  the  Church  and  the  Fathers  from  the  days  of 

the  apostles.J    So  that  were  they  to  return  to  life, 

they  would  be  astonished  that  there  should  be  found  in 
the  world  a  man  of  such  extravagant  audacity  as  to  dare 
thus  to  abuse  the  word  of  God,  himself,  his  readers,  and 
the  whole  world.  "Happy,"  exclaims  Bishop  Bancroft, 
"a  thousand  times  happy  had  it  been  for  our  island,  if 
no  Englishman  or  Scotchman  had  ever  set  his  foot  in 
Geneva,  if  he  had  never  known  a  single  one  of  these 
Genevese  doctors !"  Calvin  declared  that  Luther  had 
done  nothing  of  any  value  ....  that  people  were  not 

*The  German  Wolmar,  who  while  he  gave  him  lessons  at  Bour- 
ges  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  had  filled  him  with  the  new  doctrines  of 
Germany. 

f"w3  Survey  of  the  pretended  Holy  Discipline,  by  Bishop  Bancroft." 
At  this  period,  the  Church  of  England  professed  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence,  which  she  did  not  abandon  till  seventy-four 
years  afterwards. 

Jit  is  remarkable  that  the  Fathers  quoted  by  Bishop  Bancroft  are 
precisely  those  whom  Mr.  Faber  has  been  bold  enough  to  adduce 
in  favor  of  his  moral  change,  his  allegorical  and  purely  figurative 
sense:  they  are  S  S.  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustin,  Chrysostom,  &c. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  221 

to  amuse  themselves  with  following  his  footsteps,  and 
being  half-papists;  but  that  it  was  far  better  to  build 
a  new  Church  altogether.* 

By  this  time,  sir,  you  will  know  what  opinion  to 
form  of  these  famous  triumvirs.  They  aimed  at  the 
same  point,  each  in  his  own  way:  they  understood  each 
other  thoroughly.  It  would  therefore  be  the  highest 
injustice  to  call  in  question  the  judgment  they  have 
passed  upon  each  other  and  upon  themselves.  Our 
Rev.  Bachelor  particularly  cannot  but  believe  his  hon- 
ourable and  eminent  personages:  he  could  not  refuse 
them  credit,  without  contradicting  himself.  Let  him 
reconcile,  as  he  thinks  proper,  his  opinion  of  these  gen- 
tlemen with  the  characters  they  have  left  us  of  them- 
selves. As  for  you,  sir,  I  flatter  myself  that  after 
acknowledging  the  justice,  which  they  have  mutually 
rendered  to  each  other,  you  will  so  far  do  them  justice, 
as  not  to  consider  them  worthy  of  credit  on  any  other 
subject. 

XXIII.  Thus  when  they  tell  you  that  Jesus  Christ 
did  not  establish  the  apostles  and  their  successors  to 
preserve  the  faithful  in  the  unity  of  his  doctrine  and  of 
his  Church;  that  he  did  not  promise  to  be  with  them 
and  direct  their  teaching  till  the  end  of  the  world;  you 
will  not  believe  them.  When  they  tell  you  that  the 
right  of  interpreting  this  Testament  was  left  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  the  faithful  individually,  or  even  to  some  par- 
ticular teachers,  you  will  not  believe  them:  and  you  will 
be  the  less  disposed  to  give  them  credit,  as  you  see  in 
your  own  country  at  this  day,  Christianity  torn  in  pie- 
ces and  laid  waste  by  a  multitude  of  sects,  all  sprung 
out  of  this  absurd  presumption. 

If  they  shall  tell  you  that  in  the  most  Holy  Eucha- 
rist, there  is  no  change  of  substance,  or  that  our  Saviour 
is  not  there  really  present,  but  that  there  is  only  a  type, 

*  See  the  Appendix,  p.  77,  of  my  1st  vol.  where  will  be  found 
what  the  early  reformers  thought  and  wrote  in  all  truth. 


222  ANSWER  TO  THE 

an  emblem  or  figure  of  his  body,  you  will  not  believe 
them.  When  they  tell  you  that  confession  to  a  priest, 
though  useful  in  some  cases,  is  never  necessary  in  any; 
and  that  you  can  always  obtain  pardon  of  your  sins, 
without  recourse  to  the  ministry  of  those,  to  whom 
alone  Jesus  Christ  gave  the  power  of  remitting  them, 
you  will  refuse  to  believe  them.  When  they  say  that 
our  Divine  Saviour's  satisfaction  exempts  you  from  any 
personal  satisfaction  in  this  world,  or  the  next,  you 
will  not  believe  them.  When  they  shall  tell  you  that 
at  the  moment  of  death,  souls  still  defiled  with  those 
smaller  stains,  which  heaven  cannot,  admit,  will  be  at 
once  cast  into  hell,  you  will  refuse  to  believe  them. 
When  in  fine,  they  shall  tell  you  that  prayers  for  the 
dead,  in  use  from  the  first  beginning  of  Christianity, 
cannot  afford  them  any  comfort,  you  will  not  believe 
them. 

XXIV.  "But,"  you  will  exclaim,  "all  these  points 
of  doctrine  are  exactly  our  own:  did  they  really  come 
to  us  from  such  depraved  men?"  If  you  consult  Mr. 
Faber,  he  will  tell  you  that  however  great  a  resem- 
blance may  be  found  between  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  England  and  that  of  the  three  reformers,  the  utmost 
that  can  be  discovered  is  an  imperfect  family  likeness. 
For  the  established  Church  acknowledges  none  for  its 
progenitors,  and  heads,  but  those  sages,  those  venera- 
ble bishops,  who  in  the  convocation  of  1562  modelled 
their  doctrines  upon  the  antiquity,  the  faith,  and  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  Church.  Certainly  it  is  not  well 
to  deny  our  parentage.  We  may  blush  at  what  our 
fathers  were,  but  we  ousrht  not  to  disown  them.  With 
history  in  our  hands,  let  us  compel  Mr.  Faber  to  carry 
up  his  pedigree  a  step  higher,  though  it  will  not  there- 
by be  more  ennobled.  Ask  him  from  what  source 
Queen  Elizabeth's  bishops  derived  their  reformed  the- 
ology. The  new  doctrines  had  for  more  than  forty 
years  been  accredited  in  Switzerland  and  Germany; 
irona  those  countries  they  had  been  introduced  into 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  823 

France  and  Holland.  In  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  they 
had  clandestinely  found  their  way  into  England  with 
the  most  Rev.  Dr.  Cranmer  and  his  wife;  and  under 
the  youthful  Edward  they  spread  abroad  their  sweet 
odours  more  freely.  When  Mary  came  to  the  throne, 
those  ecclesiastics  who  were  seduced  or  infected, 
sought  asylums  at  Geneva,  in  Switzerland,  and  various 
states  of  Germany.  Hence,  after  long  draughts  at  the 
fountains  of  Luther,  Zwinglius,  and  Calvin,  they  return- 
ed to  their  country,  quite  full  of  the  new  opinions, 
which  they  afterwards  produced  in  the  form  of  the  39 
articles;  and  seasoned  to  the  taste  of  the  country  in  the 
holy  and  venerable  convocation  of  1562.  Such  is  the 
historical  fact:  such  is  the  cause  of  that  filial  resem- 
blance, which  you  judiciously  observed  between  the 
Fathers  of  the  famous  convocation  and  the  immortal 
triumvirate  of  the  Continent.  I  am  sensible  how 
humiliating  is  such  a  descent  to  the  Church  of  England: 
but  there  is  still  a  way  of  escaping;  it  is  to  destroy  it, 
and  retreat  from  it  with  all  expedition. 

XXV.  At  the  end  of  the  same  note,  Mr.  Faber  ap- 
pears to  find  fault  with  my  having  adduced,  p.  333. 
vol.  1 — Forbes,  Montague,  Thorndyke,  and  Parker, 
as  favourable  to  transubstantiation.  He  alleges  that 
they  only  maintain  what,  the  Church  of  England  has 
ever  maintained,  and  what  he  himself  has  said.  It  is 
true  that  Mr.  Faber  has  expressed  the  sentiment 
which  I  quoted  from  Forbes,  and  that  I  signified"  my 
satisfaction  thereupon.  But  would  he  also  consent  to 
say  with  the  celebrated  Thorndyke,  that  "the  ele- 
ments are  really  changed  from  ordinary  bread  and 
wine,  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  mystically 
present,  as  in  a  sacrament;  and  that,  in  virtue  of  the 
consecration,  not  by  the  faith  of  him  that  receives?"* 
Would  he  declare  with  Bp.  Montague,  after  S  S. 
Cyprian,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Basil  and  Ambrose,  that 

*  Epilogue,  b.  3,  ch.  5. 


224  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  change  caused  by  the  consecration  of  the  ele- 
ments is  called  a  transmutation  and  transelementation?* 
Would  he  acknowledge  with  Bp.  Parker,  that,  "the 
ancient  Fathers,  from  age  to  age,  asserted  the  real 
and  substantial  presence,  in  very  high  and  expres- 
sive terms?  The  Greeks  and  Latins  styled  it  conver- 
sion— transmutation — transformation — transfiguration 
— transelementation,  and,  at  length,  transubstantiation; 
by  all  which  they  expressed  nothing  more  or  less  than 
the  real  and  substantial  presence  in  the  Eucharist."f 
Let  Mr.  Faber  honestly  adopt  the  doctrine  and  lan- 
guage of  these  learned  divines;  and  I  shall  then  quote 
him  at  the  end  of  them,  with  much  more  joy  than  I 
felt  pain  in  refuting  his  pitiful  invention  of  a  moral 
change,  and  the  opinion  of  a  figurative  presence,  which 
he  affects  to  discover  in  antiquity,  with  the  moderns 
of  the  Church  of  England,  since  the  year  1662. 
They  borrowed  it  genuine  from  the  schools  of  Zwing- 
lius  and  Calvin. 

Mr.  Faber  concludes  his  long  note  by  shewing 
great  indignation  at  a  liberty,  which  every  contro- 
vertist  of  good  sense  would  have  taken  equally  with 
myself — that  of  producing  against  him  his  own  divines, 
Montague,  Thorndyke,  and  Parker,  who  were  so  fa- 
vourable to  transubstantiation.  So  natural  and  just  a 
proceeding  he  denounces  "a  stratagem  unworthy  of 
the  Bishop  of  Aire,"  (Strasbourg):  and  particularly 
as  lie  observes  aIn  a  work  professedly  addressed  to 
the  "English  laity. "  The  Rector  must  have  a  very 
short  memory :  he  continually  forgets  that  he  himself 
represented  my  Discussion  Amicale  as  not  addressed 
to  the  laity,  but  to  the  clergy  of  all  the  Protestant 
communions,  in  a  dedicatory  epistle  at  the  head  of  the 
work.J 

*  Appeal,  ch.  1. 

f  Reasons  for  abrogating  the  Test,  p.  13 

X  See  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  page  6. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  225 

COxNFESSION. 

XXVI.  In  his  ninth  chapter,  on  Confession,  Mr.  Fa- 
ber  scarcely  touches  the  proofs  developed  by  me  in 
sixty-six  consecutive  pages.  Since  he  has  found  it 
convenient  to  leave  my  arguments  and  authorities  un- 
refuted,  I  shall  content  myself  with  entreating  his 
readers  to  compare  my  eleventh  letter  with  his  ninth 
chapter.  I  shewed  by  reasoning  suggested  to  me  by 
texts  from  the  New  Testament,  and  by  testimonies 
furnished  by  the  Fathers  of  Antiquity,  that  auricular 
confession  is  of  divine  institution;  that  it  is  indispen- 
sably necessary,  in  act  or  desire,  to  obtain  pardon  for 
our  faults,  and  that  it  requires  the  enumeration  of  all 
grievous  sins  of  which  we  feel  ourselves  guilty.  Mr. 
Faber  has  read  these  arguments  and  testimonies :  and 
yet  it  seems  that  he  wishes  to  ask  me  of  what  kind  of 
auricular  confession  I  would  be  understood  to  speak? 
Whether  of  that  obliging  to  a  special  enumeration  of 
sins,  or  that  which  requires  no  more  than  a  general 
acknowledgment  of  our  having  sinned?  Surely  he 
might  have  spared  himself  such  a  question,  superflu- 
ous to  say  the  least,  after  my  discussion  of  this  impor- 
tant matter. 

He  comes  next  to  compare  our  confession  made  in 
detail,  with  that  of  his  own  Church  made  only  in  gen- 
eral terms:  and,  as  would  be  readily  presumed,  gives 
the  preference  to  the  latter.  It  is  curious  to  see  the 
reason  on  which  he  builds  his  preference.  He  has 
discovered  with  singular  penetration,  and  rare  saga- 
city, that  with  the  most  exact  detail,  a  hypocrite  may 
deceive  his  confessor  as  to  the  actual  dispositions  of 
his  mind.  Assuredly,  his  supposition  will  not  be  dis- 
puted; for  no  man  can  clearly  read  the  heart  of  an- 
other: but  have  I  not  the  same  right  to  suppose  that 
the  sinner  whom  Mr.  Faber  represents  "without  a 
single  specification  in  detail,"  may  be  equally  a  hypo- 
crite when  he  chooses  to  conceal  his  actual  disposi- 
20 


226  ANSWER  TO  THE 

tions?  He  will  even  find  it  the  more  easy  to  succeed 
in  his  deception,  as  he  will  have  no  probation  to  un- 
dergo, fewer  facts  to  declare,  and  fewer  words  to 
speak.  But  what  avail  these  poor  attempts,  and  what 
can  be  inferred  from  these  imaginary  suppositions, 
against  the  habitual  and  voluntary  course  of  the  tribu- 
nal of  penance? 

XXVII.  Mr.  Faber  makes  small  account  of  entire 
confessions.     It  is  enough   for  him  if  the  sinner  ac- 
knowledges in  general  terms  that  he  has  deeply  sinned 
against  God,  and  declare  himself  repentant  from  the 
bottom  of  his  soul.     He  seems  to  have  no  true  idea 
of  the  ministry  of  a  confessor.     This  does  not  solely 
consist  in  granting  or  refusing  absolution,  but  in  decid- 
ing upon  it  judiciously  from  an  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  case.     This,  you  will  at  once  conceive,  obliges 
the  priest  to  study  the  actual  disposition  of  his  peni- 
tent, to  feel  assured,  before  he  absolves  him,  that  his 
repentance  is  true,  and  not  merely  the  effect  of  some 
transitorv  emotion:  therefore  he  will  have  recourse  to 
delay  of  absolution  and  to  suitable  probations.     In  the 
mean  time,  he  will  summon  him  from  time  to  time,  ex- 
amine  his  predominant  inclinations,   and  fortify  him 
against  those  temptations,  to  which  he  finds  him  most 
exposed.     He  will  insist,  incase  the  sinner  has  injured 
his  neighbour,  on  the  necessity  of  his  making  good 
the  injury  he  has  caused  to  his  neighbour's  fortune  or 
reputation.     In  fine,  it  is  his  duty  to  exhibit  towards 
him  the  solicitude  of  a  father,   the   tenderness  of  a 
friend,  and  the  prudence  of  an  enlightened  judge :  or 
if  you  prefer  considering  him  under  a  more   striking 
image,  I  will  tell  you  that  the  art  of  a  spiritual  direc- 
tor is  to  apply  to  withered  and  languishing  souls  suita- 
ble remedies  and  succours,  with  the  same  zeal  and 
attention  with  which  a  skilful  physician  applies  them 
to  bodily   diseases.     The  justice  of  this  comparison 
will  become  more  evident  from  the  following  supposi- 
tion; for  which  I  crave  your  indulgence. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  227 

XXVIII.  I  mil  suppose,  which  God  forbid — that 
Mr.  Faber  is  seized  with  some  serious  attack  of 
illness.  The  physician  is  sent  for,  and  attend-. 
"What  ails  you,  my  good  sir?  You  seem  greatly  re- 
duced: where  do  you  feel  pain?"  "O I  am  very  ill,  my 
suffering  is  excessive."  "How  did  it  begin?  Where 
do  you  feel  it  particularly?"  "O,  sir,  1  have  aeted 
very  wrong,  I  acknowledge;  and  I  am  truly  sorry  for 
it:  if  you  did  but  know  what  I  suffer !"  "But  tell  me 
then;  is  it  in  your  head,  or  stomach,  or  side?  let  me 
know  where  your  pain  lies."  My  pain  weighs  heavily 
upon  me;  it  is  intolerable;  I  can  tell  you  no  more.'" 
In  vain  does  the  physician  persist  in  endeavouring  to 
obtain  some  further  information,  some  particular 
avowal  of  his  real  situation;  he  can  elicit  none.  Not 
knowing  therefore  what  remedies  to  prescribe,  and 
fearful  of  bringing  on  his  death,  instead  of  promoting 
his  recovery,  quod  enirn  ignored,  medica  non  curat,  he 
leaves  the  patient  to  himself,  and  to  his  friends,  who 
are  driven  to  despair  by  his  obstinacy,  which  is  so 
likely  to  cost  him  his  life.  But  be  well  assured,  sir, 
that  Mr.  Faber  would  never  adopt  for  the  cure  of  his 
body,  the  plan  of  proceeding  which  he  recommends 
you  to  follow  for  that  of  your  soul.  He  would  conceal 
nothing  from  his  physician,  he  would  tell  him  at  once 
the  cause,  the  seat  and  the  nature  of  his  disorder;  and 
he  would  scrupulously  confess  the  smallest  circum- 
stances, however  slightly  they  might  appear  to  aggra- 
vate his  distemper.  Accurately  informed  by  his  ac- 
count, the  physician  would  act  directly  upon  the  evil, 
and  triumph  over  it  by  suitable  remedies.  Perhaps 
Mr.  Faber  might  relapse  from  time  to  time,  but  he 
would  be  re-established  by  speedy  recourse  to  the 
physician,  whose  excellent  treatment  would  long  pre- 
serve him  to  his  family,  his  friends,  and  his  deal 
parishioners.  I  shall  not  be  surprised  if,  after  reflect- 
ing on  his  own  experience,  he  finds  it  not  so  objection- 
able a  plan  to  compare  the  confessor  to  the  physici;*^ 


228  ANSWER  TO  THE 

the  sinner  to  the  patient,  and  the  infirmities  of  the  sou! 
to  those  of  the  body;  and  perhaps  even  ends  by  mak- 
ing trial  upon  his  own  soul  of  that  very  process  of  cure, 
which  he  at  present  so  unreasonably  condemns  in  the 
practice  of  Catholics. 

XXIX.  I  have  been  most  struck  in  Mr.  Faber's 
work,  with  a  certain  peculiar  method,  which  I  find 
him  constantly  pursuing.  When  he  applies  himself  to 
refute  any  one  of  my  arguments,  instead  of  bringing  it 
forward  in  my  own  words,  he  sums  it  up  in  his  own 
fashion,  and  says,  that  my  whole  proof,  reduced  to 
regular  form,  would  run  as  a  syllogism  thus — or  words 
to  the  same  effect.  Then  he  attacks  his  own  syllogism, 
of  course  with  ample  success;  but  leaves  my  real 
argument  untouched.  If  I  produce  the  belief  of  the 
primitive  and  universal  Church,  he  very  soon  substi- 
tutes for  it  the  Latin  Chvrch:  and  by  this  manoeuvre, 
escapes  the  former,  and  insults  the  latter  as  he  pleases. 
Am  I  reasoning  on  the  real  presence?  He  makes  me 
argue  on  Transubstantiation,  which  pre-supposes  it 
certainly,  yet  is  not  identical  with  it.  Speaking  of 
that  part  of  the  secret  discipline,  which  regarded  the 
Eucharist,  I  say  that  the  real  presence  was  the  sole 
cause  of  the  secrecy  concerning  the  Eucharist;  but  Mr. 
Faber  declares  to  his  readers,  that,  according  to  my 
account — First,  Transubstantiation  was  the  sole  cause 
of  the  secret  discipline.  Second,  that  it  was  the  sole, 
exclusive  cause  of  the  secrecy  observed  upon  the  mys- 
teries, and  that  Third,  it  was  the  principal  cause  of 
the  general  discipline  of  the  secret.  Then  he  goes 
into  a  long  refutation  of  these  allegations  attributed  to 
me,  but  of  which  you  will  not  find  one  syllable  in  eith- 
er of  my  volumes. 

At  page  115  he  pretends  that  the  "five  first  centu- 
ries recognised  no  change  save  a  moral  change  in  the 
consecrated  elements" — an  expression  unknown  before 
his  own  time — and  that  the  Church  "esteemed  the 
bread  and  wine  to  be  only  types,  orjigvrcs,  or  symbols^ 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  229 

or  images  of  ...  .  the  literal  body  and  blood  of  Christ.." 
Now  lie  has  not  only  quoted  no  Father,  nor  can  quote 
any,  who  has  made  use  of  these  negative  and  exclu- 
sive expressions  of  the  real  presence;  but  it  is  a  fact 
on  the  contrary,  that  all  the  Fathers  have  professed 
their  belief  of  the  real  presence.  I  have  placed  be- 
fore you  proofs  of  this;  and  assuredly,  if  they  are  not 
demonstrative,  there  are  none  such  in  questions  of  evi- 
dence and  history.  At  page  133  he  makes  me,  and 
even  Bossuet  say,  that  the  figure  of  a  thing  may  be  at 
the  same  time  the  thing  itself:  an  absurdity  created 
only  in  his  own  brain.  For  I  merely  said  that  a  thing 
may  be  a  sensible  sign,  a  sign  apparent  to  the  senses, 
of  another  thing,  which  is  not  so:  I  said  that  the  visible 
and  material  species  concealed  the  spiritualized  and 
invisible  body  of  our  Saviour. 

XXX.  Now,  sir,  be  pleased  to  interrogate  Mr. 
Faber:  call  upon  him  most  seriously  to  explain  clearly 
to  you  by  what  right  he  has  chosen  to  alter  my 
expressions,  and  put  his  own  in  their  place;  to  impute 
to  me  opinions,  which  are  foreign  to  me*  and  personal 
to  himself:  Ask  him  if  such  a  mode  of  refuting  an 
antagonist  be  that  of  an  honorable  man:  or  if  he 
would  be  satisfied  to  have  such  a  method  employed 
against  himself.  I  appeal  to  your  exalted  mind  and 
rectitude  of  soul:  I  feel  assured  that  you  will  agree 
with  me,  that  in  a  matter  of  indifference  such  jugglery 
could  be  considered  no  better  than  low  cunning,  but 
that  in  religious  controversy  it  is  a  crime.  Is  it  not 
true  moreover,  does  it  not  appear  to  your  eyes  as 
clear  as  to  mine,  that  had  he  detected  me  in  any  false 
reasoning  or  quotation,  he  would  have  exhibited  my 
false  assertions,  just  as  I  had  written  them?  That  he 
would  have  exposed  my  argumentation  and  testimo- 
nials exactly  in  my  own  words?  Instead  of  recurring 
to  his  usual  skill  in  metamorphosing  and  condensing  my 
passages  unfaithfully,  he  would  have  refuted  what  he 
had  read  in  my  work,  and  not  what  he  had  been  un- 
20* 


230  ANSWER  TO  THE 

able  to  find  there?  From  this  disgraceful  manoeuvring". 
I  conclude  that  he  found  it  impossible  to  reply  to  the 
arguments  I  used,  and  the  authorities  I  quoted:  I  con- 
clude that  he  would  have  had  nothing  specious  to 
write  against  either,  had  he  not  substituted  his  own 
words  for  mine,  and  falsely  represented  the  Fathers 
of  antiquity  in  contradiction  to  each  other  and  to 
themselves:  I  conclude  in  fine,  that  the  Difficulties  of 
Romanism  is  the  most  flattering  eulogium  upon  the 
Discussion  Jlmicale,  and  a  new  triumph  for  the  Catho- 
lic faith? 

SATISFACTION. 

XXXI.  In  his  chapter  on  Satisfaction,  I  detect  your 
Bachelor  again;  and  there  you  will  see  him  relapsing 
into  his  habitual  sin,  his  ruling  infidelity.  I  entreat 
you  to  read  this  chapter  X:  he  is  prodigiously  wrath 
with  me  for  the  merit  which,  he  says,  I  attach  to 
works  of  satisfaction.  He  makes  a  great  stir  to  shew 
that  neither  I,  nor  any  one  can  call  them  meritorious:  at 
every  page  he  reproaches  me  with  this  epithet,  which, 
he  assures  his  readers,  is  given  by  me  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  penitent.*  I  dare  say,  sir,  you  are  quite 
convinced  that  I  do  in  fact  speak  of  the  merit  of  our 
satisfactions,  that  the  expression — meritorious  works 
— occurs  in  my  book  frequently.  Well,  sir,  only  be 
at  the  pains  of  looking  over  my  12th  letter,  vol.  2, 
and  to  your  great  surprise,  you  will  neither  find  the 
merit  of  our  satisfactions,  nor  satisfactory  works.  These 
words,  merit  and  meritorious^  for  which  Mr.  Faber  so 
sharply  reproves  me,  are  not  to  be  found  at  all  in  my 

*  "The  bishop,  not  content  with  gratuitously  carrying  it  (the 
temporal  punishment)  into  the  next  world,  seems  evidently  to 
consider  it  in  the  light  of  a  meritorious  expiation  made  on  our  part 
when  we  either  devoutly  submit  to  it  as  sent  from  God,  or  when 
.we  freely  and  artificially  inflict  upon  ourselves" — p.  168;  and 
at  the  bottom  of  the  following  page — "The  bishop  clearly  deems, 
them  meritorious." — Et  passim. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  231 

letter,  applied  to  our  personal  satisfactions;  no,  not  in 
a  single  instance.  What  I  here  declare  may  appear 
bold,  but  it  is  perfectly  true.  Where  then  has  Mr. 
«Faber  found  these  expressions?  How  comes  it  that 
he  incessantly  attributes  them  to  me,  and  takes  occa- 
sion thence  to  reproach  me?  "What  does  he  mean  by 
this  mode  of  replying  to  what  I  have  never  advanced; 
and  appearing  to  disregard  what  I  have  said?  I  defy 
him  to  answer  these  questions  satisfactorily.  No 
doubt  it  would  have  pleased  him  to  find  me  really  at- 
taching a  proper,  independent  merit  to  our  satisfactory 
works,  as  he  represents  me  to  have  done.  But  fatally 
for  his  honour  and  good  faith,  I  have  done  no  such 
thing;  but  have  written  precisely  the  contrary.  My 
words  are  these,  p.  215,  vol.  2 — aIs  it  undervaluing 
the  merit  of  the  cross,  to  acknowledge  that  without 
the  particular  application  of  its  infinite  merits  to  us,  it 
is  impossible  for  any  one  to  derive  benefit  from  it;  that 
this  application  nevertheless  requires  our  co-operation, 
because  he  who  created  us  without  our  concurrence , 
will  not  save  us  without  our  concurrence;  and  that 
still  our  personal  and  satisfactory  works  are  no  more 
in  themselves  than  dead  icorks,  but  that  by  being  united 
to  those  of  our  Saviour,  by  approaching  his  cross,  and 
touching  the  sacred  and  life-giving  wood,  they  derive 
life,  strength,  and  value,  as  they  are  then  offered  by 
Jesus  Christ  to  his  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  are 
accepted  by  the  Father?*  Is  it  derogatory  to  the 
merit  of  the  cross  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  become  his  imi- 
tators, as  far  as  possible;  to  punish  ourselves  for  our  sins 
after  his  example,  as  he  was  pleased  that  they  should 
be  punished  in  his  holy  and  divine  person;  to  unite  a 
feeble  and  inefficacious  satisfaction  to  that,  which  he 
fully  and  abundantly  paid  for  us  with  his  blood?  Tell 
me:  is  it  not  our  duty  to  imitate  as  closely  as  possible. 
Him,  who  came  to  be  our  model,  and  who  said:  lIf  any 

*  Council  of  Trent,  sect.  xiv.  ch.  xviii. 


232  ANSWER  TO  THE 

man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  take  up  his  cross  and 
follow  me?"  And  is  it  not  manifest  that  so  far  from 
being  derogatory  to  the  merits  of  our  Saviour,  or  in- 
compatible with  his  suffering's,  our  temporal  satisfac- 
tions are  absolutely  inseparable  from  them?  What 
then?  Because  we  cannot  offer  sufficient  satisfaction, 
are  we  to  offer  none?  Are  we  exempt  from  all  ex- 
piation, because  we  cannot  carry  it  to  an  infinite 
extent?  And  because  we  are  unable  to  pay  the 
whole  debt,  are  we  dispensed  with  from  all  efforts 
to  pay  according  to  our  means?"*  Such  is  the  pas- 
sage of  which  Mr.  Faber  has  quoted  some  few  words. 
Do  you  find  in  it  a  single  expression  objectionable? 
Do  you  see  there  the  merit  of  our  satisfactions,  and 
our  meritorious  works?  I  say  on  the  contrary  that  our 
works  are  only  in  themselves  dead  works,  and  our 
satisfaction  a  feeble  and  inefficacious  satisfaction.  But 
it  is  not  the  less  necessary  on  our  part.  Still  the  ob- 
ligation of  satisfying,  and  the  merit  of  it  are  different 
things!  Mr.  Faber  has  thought  proper  to  be  silent 
upon  the  words  above  in  italics,  and  to  withhold  them 
from  his  readers  by  a  perfidious  suppression.  In  place 
of  them  he  brings  forward  what  he  wished  to  attack, 
and  what  is  not  there  to  be  found — the  merit  of  our 
wrorks,  our  meritorious  satisfaction.  O  equity!  O  can- 
dour! I  look  for  you  in  my  antagonist,  but  I  cannot 
find  you! 

In  proof  of  the  necessity  of  satisfaction,  I  quoted  the 
testimonies  of  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Ambrose, 
and   St.   Augustin. — These   are  the  very  Fathers  to 

*  I  will  here  call  to  my  support  a  grand  and  noble  authority: 
"Without  the  penance  of  our  divine  Saviour,  yours  would  be  un- 
Jruitful:  without  yours,  his  would  remain  without  effect.  It  is  his 
which  gives  value  to  yours,  yours  alone  can  give  effect  to  his.  Let 
the  sight  of  his  satisfaction  support  and  direct  yours ;  let  it  be  its  en- 
couragement and  pattern:  let  it  teach  you  both  the  necessity  and  the 
method  of  putting  it  in  practice."  The  immortal  Card.  De  la 
Luzerne  in  his  pious  and  profound  Considerations  on  the  Passions, 
p.  328. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  233 

whom  Mr.  Faber  himself  appeals  at  page  1 9,  though 
certainly  most  unwarrantably,  in  favour  of  his  moral 
change,  and  whose  authority  he  there  exalted  to  its 
deserved  height.  But  what  does  he  say  of  them  here? 
At  first  he  does  not  know  well  how  to  understand  the 
very  clear  passages  by  me  adduced-  but  be  the  case 
as  it  may,  he  adds:  "If  they  use  the  term  in  his  lord- 
ship's apparent  sense,  I  shall  have  no  hesitation  in  sav- 
ing, that  their  grossly  unscriptural  language  merely 
shews  how  soon  and  how  easily  a  specious  and  flatter- 
ing corruption  crept  into  the  Church."  So  modest  a 
declaration  suggests  to  my  mind  a  parallel  sufficiently 
rich  between  Mr.  Faber  and  his  eminent  foreigner 
Calvin.  "I  am  little  moved,"  says  Calvin,  "with  what 
we  find  at  every  step  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients 
concerning  satisfaction.  I  see  that  the  greater  part, 
or,  to  speak  more  explicitly,  almost  all  those  whose 
works  remain  to  us,  have  either  positively  erred  on  this 
subject,  or  have  spoken  upon  it  too  severely."  The 
reformer  candidly  allows  that  almost  all  the  ancient 
Fathers  taught  the  necessity  of  satisfaction.  Our 
reformed  author  does  not  dare  to  make  the  like  avowal; 
he  still  doubts:  but  in  his  hypothetic  conclusions,  he 
agrees  with  his  honourable  patron;  and  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  spirit  of  the  sire  has  descended  unimpaired  to 
his  very  distant  progeny.  Both  are  decisive  in  their 
decrees  against  the  Fathers,  and  have  no  hesitation  in 
arraigning  of  ignorance  and  error  the  most  enlightened 
geniuses  of  Christianity.  What  blindness  and  effront- 
ery,  not  to  discover  in  themselves  the  ignorance,  which 
they  have  the  audacity  to  attribute  to  the  great  lumina- 
ries of  antiquity!  Who  can  refrain  from  indignation, 
or  at  least  pity,  to  see  both  coming  forward  to  dictate, 
on  an  article  of  revelation,  to  illustrious  doctors,  who 
received  it  from  the  disciples  of  the  apostles,  and  taught 
it  with  so  much  glory,  in  times,  it  is  universally  ac- 
knowledged, that  faith  shone  in  all  its  primitive  splen- 
dour- 


234  ANSWER  TO  THE 

XXXIII.  Passing  in  fine,  from  speculution  to  prac- 
tice, I  exhibited  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  put  in 
operation  in  the  canonical  penances,  so  generally 
established  under  the  persecution  of  Decius;  a  striking 
and  incontestable  monument  of  the  universal  belief  of 
the  necessity  of  making  satisfaction  to  Almighty  God. 
At  the  sight  of  this  austere  and  imposing  discipline, 
Mr.  Faber  remains  dumb.  He  finds  no  answer  to  make, 
and  is  silent.  I  applaud  his  silence;  why  did  he  not 
keep  silent  on  all  that  preceded:  He  would  have 
saved  himself  the  displeasure,  which  he  has  forced  me 
to  give  him,  and  me  the  sad  and  truly  painful  duty  of 
exposing  his  theological  disqualifications,  and  his  con- 
tinual forgetfulness  of  good  faith  and  probity  in  contro- 
versial discussion. 

INDULGENCES. 

XXXIV.  Whoever  rejects  with  Mr.  Faber  the  pre- 
cept of  satisfying  God  by  works  of  penance,  must, 
with  him  and  Calvin,  not  only  accuse  the  Fathers  of 
error  and  severity  in  their  teaching,  and  by  an  inevita- 
ble consequence,  the  primitive  Church  of  injustice  in 
the  institution  of  canonical  and  satisfactory  penalties; 
but  disdainfully  refuse  the  helps  and  favours,  which  the 
Church  offers,  and  adds  to  the  insufficiency  of  our 
satisfactions.  He  must  dismiss  with  the  multitude  of 
fabulous  inventions,  the  belief  of  a  place  of  expiation, 
between  heaven  and  hell,  and  send  without  mercy  to 
eternal  torments  those  souls  who  carry  into  the  next 
world  any  stains  contracted  in  this.  He  must  consider 
all  communication  with  his  departed  friends  cut  off- — 
renounce  the  consolation  of  interesting  himself  for  their 
happiness,  and  regard  the  practice  of  praying  for  them 
as  vain  and  superstitious,  since  our  prayers  arc  alike 
unprofitable  to  them,  whether  their  abode  is  with  the 
elector  with  the  damned,  with  angels  or  devils.  Thus 
Mr.  Faber  will  hear  nothing  about  indulgencies,  or 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  035 

purgatory,  or  prayers  for  the  dead.  He  reasons  con- 
sistently, I  acknowledge,  but  as  he  sets  out  with  a  false 
principle,  his  conclusions  are  equally  erroneous. 
9  XXXV.  The  twelfth  letter  of  my  Discussion  Amicalc, 
established  the  precept  of  satisfaction  to  the  divine 
justice:  the  thirteenth  solidly  proved  the  existence  in 
the  Church  of  right  and  power  to  grant  indulgences, 
as  also  their  utility  and  importance  to  sinners.  Mr. 
Faber  attempts  in  his  eleventh  chapter  to  invalidate  my 
proofs;  but  in  vain.  You  may  judge  by  comparing  our 
respective  writings.  I  need  not  observe,  that  in  this 
eleventh  chapter  he  incessantly  puts  into  my  mouth 
the  merit  of  our  satisfactions,  our  meritorious  works 
and  meritorious  expiations.  It  is  clear  that  he  is  de- 
termined to  palm  these  expressions  upon  me,  though 
they  never  proceeded  from  my  pen:  but  if  he  repeat 
them  a  hundred  times  in  succession,  so  many  times  shall 
I  reply  that  what  he  says  is  untrue.  He  maintains  that 
to  attribute  to  the  Church  the  power  of  granting  indul- 
gences, is  as  much  as  conceding  to  her  the  privilege  of 
depriving  the  divine  justice  of  a  part  of  the  expiations 
otherwise  due;  and  this  idea  appears  to  him  so  luminous 
and  well  imagined  that  he  repeats  it  in  the  next  para- 
graph. But  who  was  it  that  invested  the  Church  with 
this  high  prerogative?  Was  it  not  our  Saviour  himself? 
Who  then  can  restrain  the  exercise  of  a  right,  which 
our  Saviour  promised  her  by  those  solemn  words: 
"whatsoever  you  shall  loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven?"  1  perceive  also  in  page  one  hundred  and 
seventy-nine,  that  he  would  make  you  believe  that  this 
right  belongs  to  every  priest.  This  is  another  notion 
entirely  his  own.  Yet  he  ought  to  know  that  priests 
never  make  use  of  it  but  by  delegation  from  bishops  in 
the  extent  of  their  jurisdiction;  and  that  the  power  of 
communicating  to  the  whole  earth  the  benefit  of  indul- 
gences belongs  only  to  the  supreme  head  of  the  univer- 
sal Church. 


236  ANSWER  TO  THE 

XXXVI.  I  know  not,  or  rather  I  can  pretty  well 
guess,  why  he  has  chosen  to  misrepresent  the  affair 
of  the  incestuous  Corinthians,  at  p.  180.  "The  Corin- 
thians, as  St.  Paul  expresses  himself,  had  deliver- 
ed an  incestuous  member  of  their  community  unto 
Satan,"  &c. — So  says  Mr.  Faber,  but  in  chap.  5, 
of  the  1st  epistle,  the  apostle  reproves  them  for  hav- 
ing kept  him  in  their  community:  "I  indeed,  absent  in 
body  but  present  in  spirit,  have  already  judged  ....  to 

deliver  such  a  one  to  Satan Your  glorying  is  not 

good.  Know  you  not  that  a  little  leaven  corrupteth 
the  whole  lump?"  And  in  chap.  2d,  of  the  2d  epistle: 
"To  him  that  is  such  a  one,  this  rebuke  is  sufficient, 
that  is  given  by  many:  so  that  contrariwise,  you 
should  rather  forgive  him,  and  comfort  him  lest  per- 
haps such  a  one  be  swallowed  up  with  overmuch  sor- 
row. Wherefore  I  beseech  you  that  you  would  con- 
firm your  charity  towards  him and  to  whom  you 

have  forgiven  any  thing,  I  also."  Therefore  it  was 
St.  Paul  who  punished  and  who  relaxed  the  punish- 
ment. According  to  Mr.  Faber  the  faithful  chastised 
and  afterwards  pardoned:  "satisfied"  he  says,  "of  the 
sincerity  of  the  man's  contrition,  they  pardoned  him 
the  disgrace  which  he  had  brought  upon  the  church, 
and  re-admitted  him  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  former 
privileges  as  a  baptized  Christian.  The  circumstance 
and  ground  of  his  re-admission  were  communicated  to 
St.  Paul;  and  St.  Paul,  in  reply,  informs  them,  that  aa 
they  had  forgiven  the  offender,  so  likewise  did  he  foik 
their  sakes  in  the  person  of  Christ."*  Would  not  any 
one  really  say  that  it  was  decreed  that  this  unfortunate 
Bachelor  should  spoil  every  thing  he  touched,  and  never 
represent  things  as  they  really  are? 

XXXVII.  "The  bishop,"  he  goes  on  p.  182,  "has 
no  hesitation  in  pronouncing,  with  or  without  the  con- 
sent of  his  Church,  that  the  validity  of  indulgences . . . 
entirely  depends  upon  the  dispositions  of  thesinner?* 
Why  should  Mr  -Faber  raise  a  doubt  on  this  h«ad; 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  237 

after  reading  the  admirable  dogmatical  letter  of  the 
learned  and  pious  pontiff  who  now  fills3  in  so  worthy  a 
manner,  the  chair  of  St.  Peter?  The  principle  is  there 
most  clearly  developed.*     The  Rev.  Bachelor  pa 
next  to  those  abuses,  which  in  the  16th  century  refli 
ed  dishonour  on  the  publication  of  indulgences;  am 
may  well  be  supposed  that  under  his  pen,  these  ab, 
would  lose  nothing  of  their  enormity.     "What,-"  says 
he,  with  much  warmth,  "what  was  the  crying  abom- 
ination, which  first  roused  the  indignant  spirit  of 
great  and  much-calumniated  "Luther?"     No,  Mr.  Fa- 
ber;  calumniated  is  not  the  right  word.     No  one  has 
painted  this  great  Luther  in  more  odious  colours  than 
himself,  and  his  associates  in  the  work  of  the  reforma- 
tion, Zwinglius  and  Calvin,  those  two  eminent  persona- 

3,  who  composed  with  Luther  the  honoured  trium 
rate  of  the  Rector  of  Long  Newton.     No  one  has* 
ter  informed  us  of  his  passions  and  fury  than  his  inti- 
mate, but  timid  friend,  Melancthon,  who  complained 
of  having  received  blows  from  him,  and  I  engage,  • 
were  none  of  the  lightest.f     To  judge  by  the  original 
portrait,  which  I  have  seen  in  the  temple  of  Wittem- 
berg,  the  vigorous  reformer  must  have  had  a  he 
hand.     Taking  altogther  what  we  find  in  these  fourco- 
temporarv  authors  concerning  Luther,  of  the  impetu- 
osity of  his  passions,  and  his  unbounded  pride,  we  must 
feel  convinced  that  this  great,  honourable,  and  eminent 
man  has  left  nothing  even  for  calumny  itself  to  invent 
against  him. 

To  return  to  the  abuses  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Fabe  . 
the  publication  of  the  indulgences  of  Leo  X;  an  im- 
partial and  honourable  writer  would  not  have  failed  to 
observe  that  the  councirof  Lateran,  under  Innocent  III. 

*I  have  lately  read  with  fresh  admiration  this  encyclical  letter 
to  all  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  world.  I  wish  it  were  known  to 
Protestants:  it  would  make  on  many  a  very  different  impression 
from  what  Mr.  Faber  appears  to  have  felt  from  its  perusal : 

t"Ab  ipso  colaphos  accepi."     Epist.  ad  Tlieodor. 
21 


238  ANSWER  TO  THE 

in  1215,  and  that  of  Vienne  under  Clement  V.  in  1311, 
had  previously  fulminated  against  the  greater  part  of 
the  same  kind  of  abuses;  and  that  the  council  of  Trent, 
grieving  to  find  that  the  prohibitions  of  those  councils 
had  not  been  effectual  in  eradicating  the  abuses  in  ques- 
tion, considered  it  necessary  to  cut  to  the  quick,  and 
suppressed  the  employment  of  questors,  abolished  their 
very  name  in  detestation  of  their  scandals,  and  ordain- 
ed that  in  future  indulgences  should  be  published  by 
the  bishops.* 

XXXVIII.  On  the  subject  before  us,  allow  me,  sir, 
to  place  again  before  you  a  passage  in  my  Discussion 
Jlmicale,  vol.  2,  pp.  232,  234:  "If  Luther,  supported  by 
the  councils  of  Lateran,  Vienne,  and  Trent,  and  by  the 
concurrent  sentiments  of  the  most  able  divines,  of  such 
a  man,  for  instance,  as  Cardinal  Cusa,  who  gained  the 
admiration  of  Germany  in  the  legation,  which  he  per- 
formed, and  in  which  he  published  the  indulgence  of 
the  jubilee  in  1450;  if  Luther  had  only  risen  up  against 
the  ignorance  of  the  preachers  in  his  time,  and  the 
disgraceful  traffic,  which  wras  made  of  indulgences,  he 
would  have  merited  the  applause  of  the  Church,  and 
of  all  succeeding  ages.  But  this  man  of  violent  pas- 
sions neither  knew  how  to  master  himself,  nor  curb  the 
impetuosity,  which  urged  him,  step  by  step,  to  rebel- 
lion. The  consequences  of  that  too  celebrated  dis- 
pute are  well  known,  as  also  how,  passing  on  from  the 
abuse  to  the  principle,  he  went  so  far  as  to  deny  that 
the  Church  had  any  power  to  grant  indulgences  to 
penitents. 

"  'Give  rather  to  the  poor,'  he  exclaimed  again  and 
again  to  his  hearers,  'give  for  the  love  of  God,  to  the 
poor  the  money  which  is  demanded  of  you  for  the 
building  of  St.  Peter's.'  Who  ever  doubted  that  we 
ought  to  give  to  the  poor?  How  often  have  Churches 
given  up  their  vessels  of  gold  and  silver,  their  orna- 
ments and  jewels  to  feed  the  poor?     But  does  charity 

•See  Discussion  .imicale,  vol.  2,  p.  231. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  239 

towards  our  indigent  brethren  forbid  extraordinary 
succour  for  the  erection  of  a  temple  to  the  Lord,  par- 
ticularly in  the  mother-church?  If  the  abuses  in  col- 
lecting alms  in  Luther's  time  are  to  be  condemned, 
where  is  the  man  of  sense  and  good  taste  who  could 
blame  the  intention  of  those  alms?  Surely  none  of  those 
who  have  visited  and  admired  that  Church,  the  most 
worthy  monument,  which  men  ever  erected  with  their 
feeble  hands  to  the  supreme  majesty  of  God.11 

Mr.  Faber  interprets  in  his  own  way  my  silence  on 
the  subject  of  the  riches,  which  constitute  the  inexhaust- 
ible treasure  of  indulgences.  It  is  clear  however  that 
I  had  no  need  to  repeat  what  is  written  in  all  the  jubi- 
bulls,  and  in  every  elementary  book  on  indulgences. 
This  treasure  is  composed  of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ, 
with  which  are  associated  those  of  such  holy  persons, 
who  by  an  especial  grace,  led  upon  earth  a  life  of  in- 
nocence and  purity.  Their  charitable  and  angelic 
works,  ever  united  to  those  of  our  divine  Saviour,  de- 
rived- during  this  life  all  their  merit  from  their  union 
with  our  Saviour's  merits,  in  the  same  manner  as  after 
death,  they  derive  all  their  merit  from  the  infinite  merits 
of  the  God-man.  What  can  be  objected  to  in  this  doc- 
trine? In  iruth,  to  find  any  thing  here  which  we  should 
blush  to  acknowledge,  can  only  be  done  by  a  head  de- 
plorably disordered  by  prejudice.     He  that  would 

5t  ridicule  on  this  pious  and  ancient  -belief,  would 
only  bring  derision  upon  himself. 

PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD— PURGATORY. 

XXXI X.  I  had  joined  Purgatory  and  Prayers  for 
i1ilj  dead  in  one  article;  because  the  custom  of  praying 
for  the  dead  evidently  pre-supposes  the  belief  of  a 
middle  place  between  heaven  and  hell;  and  because 
when  we  shew  this  practice  in  the  primitive  Church, 
we,  by  this  single  fact,  demonstrate  her  belief  in  this 
middle  state,  where  souls  are  purified  from  every  stain, 
before  they  are  admitted  to  the  abode  of  innoce 


240  ANSWER  TO  THE 

either  preserved  or  recovered.     Now  what  does  Mr. 
Faber?     He  separates  prayers  for  the  dead  from  pur- 
gatory, in  order  to  deprive  them  of  their  natural  sup- 
port, and  attack  them  singly  with  greater  advantage, 
You  will  see  that  he  succeeds  none  the  better.     But  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  these  two  chapters  dis- 
play more  of  the  artful  sophistry,  which  he  habitually 
exercises,  and  uniformly  with  a  tone  of  assurance,  cal- 
culated to  impose  upon  readers  unable  to  detect  it. 
He  sets  out  in  his  usual  manner  with  making  me  say 
what  I  never  did  say,  and  even  affecting  to  compli- 
ment me.     "The  bishop  fairly  and  honestly  confesses, 
that  we  have  received   no   revelation  concerning   it 
from  Jesus  Christ."    No,  sir,  I  have  no  claim  to  the  fair- 
ness and  honesty  of  such  a  confession,  for  I  never  made 
it:  and  he  who  would  compliment  me,  ought  to  know 
that  I  maintain  precisely  the  contrary,  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  p.  248,  vol.  2:  "Let  us  go  farther,  and  bold- 
ly assert  that  Jesus  Christ  did  himself  approve  and  re- 
commend this  practice  to  his  disciples,"  (praying  for 
the  dead.)     I  said,  "There  must  remain  for  the  most 
part,  much  to  expiate  in  the  other  world.    But  where: 
In  what  place  and  manner?  Had  it  been  necessary  for 
us  to  be  informed  on  these  points,  doubtless  Jesus 
Christ  would  have  revealed  them  to  us.     He  has  not 
done  so:  and  therefore  we  can  only  form  more  or  less 
probable  conjectures."     Here  Mr.  Faber  omits  the  in- 
terrogations, and  after  reporting  only  the  answer,  he 
concludes  thus:  "The  doctrine,  then,  of  purgatory  is 
confessedly  not  a  matter  of  revelation:  whether  it  be 
true  or  false,  we  confessedly  cannot  ascertain  from  any 
thing  that  Christ  has  said  on  the  subject."     (P.  186.) 
Thus  he  makes  me  speak  of  the  existence  of  purgato- 
ry, when  I  am  only  treating  of  its  locality.     In  his  note 
at  the  next  page,  he  does  pretty  nearly  the  reverse.    I 
observed  in  a  note,  p.  243,  v.  2,  as  follows:  "You  ad- 
mit limbo,  because  its  existence  is  proved  to  you,  al- 
though its  situation  remains  unknown.     Let  it  equally 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  241 

satisfy  you  to  be  assured  of  the  existence  of  purgatory, 
without  troubling  yourself  to  discover  its  local  po- 
sition." But  Mr.  Faber  distorts  my  reasoning  in  this 
manner:  "You  believe  the  existence  of  such  a  place, 
though  its  local  position  is  unknown  to  you.  Rest 
then  assured  of  the  existence  of  purgatory,  though  he 
may  not  be  able  to  define  its  strict  local  position.1'  Is 
this  what  I  said?  Would  any  man  of  good  sense  have 
reasoned  in  such  a  manner?  Mr.  Faber  gravely  re- 
minds his  countrymen  that  "the  point  at  issue  is  not 
the  locality  but  the  existence  of  purgatory;"  as  if  I  had 
spoken  of  the  former  only  and  not  of  the  latter!  I  hope, 
sir,  you  will  pity  the  unfortunate  lot  of  the  Discussion 
Amicale  to  have  fallen  into  hands  so  little  disposed  to 
be  amicable. 

XL.  In  the  succeeding  page  I  find  again  his  meri- 
torious expiation.  He  repeats  it  for  ever;  persuading 
himself,  no  doubt,  that  by  continuing  to  impute  it  to 
me,  he  shall  at  last  succeed  in  making  it  pass  as  mine; 
and  by  perseverance  in  bringing  it  forward,  from 
false,  he  shall  render  it  authentic.  How  pitiful  are  all 
such  artifices!  And  how  necessary  is  patience  to  en- 
dure such  a  tissue  of  false  imputations,  joined  to  infi- 
delities so  often  repeated!  With  a  candid  and  able 
antagonist,  I  should  have  had,  no  doubt,  points  of  eru- 
dition to  clear  up,  and  important  difficulties  to  resolve. 
But  assuredly  I  should  not  have  found  what  I  have  had 
to  expose  in  this  third  part  of  my  answer.  We  are 
not  yet  at  the  end  of  these  unpleasant  subjects:  there 
are  many  more  to  claim  our  attention. 

XLI.  I  shewed  that  the  practice  of  praying  for  the 
dead  was  anterior  to  Christianity  by  the  book  of 
Macchabees,  which  is  deutero-canonical,  but  not,  as 
Mr.  Faber. would  have  it,  apocryphal.  For  the  third 
Council  of  Carthage,  resting  on  tradition,  St.  Augustin, 
Innocent  I.  and  Gelasius,  with  seventy  bishops,  place 
it  in  the  rank  of  divine  Scripture.  I  said,  that  though 
its  canonicity  had  been  doubted  for  a  time,  its  historical 
21* 


242  ANSWER  TO  THE 

truth  had  never  been  questioned.  This  ought  certainly 
to  suffice  to  shew  that  praying  for  the  dead  was  in  use 
among  the  Jews  before  our  Saviour,  who  would  not 
have  failed  to  turn  them  from  it,  if  he  had  judged  the 
custom  bad  and  superstitious. 

I  afterwards  shewed  in  concert  with  celebrated 
doctors  of  your  own,  that  this  practice  prevailed  in 
the  primitive  Church,  from  the  testimonies  of  Tertul- 
iian,  S  S.  Cyprian,  Chrysostom,  Epiphanius,  Jerome 
and  Augustin;  I  shewed  that  Origen,  St.  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,had  acknowledged  by 
name  a  middle  place,  where  souls  must  he  purified  from 
all  defilement  before  they  could  enter  heaven.  What 
reply  does  Mr.  Faber  make?  First,  He  opposes  to 
them  the  silence  of  the  apostolic  Fathers,  as  if  in  the 
small  number  of  their  writings  which  have  come  down 
to  us,  they  had  been  able  to  treat  of  every  point  of 
doctrine,  and  their  negative  testimony  could  overturn 
the  positive  atttestation  of  the  others.  Secondly,  He 
observes  that  the  oldest  of  my  authorities  goes  no  far- 
ther back  than  the  end  of  the  second  century,  namely, 
Tertullian;  who,  he  says,  was  too  far  from  the  apostles, 
to  justify  us  in  grounding  upon  him  an  apostolical  tra- 
dition. I  will  just  observe,  in  my  turn,  that  Mr.  Fa- 
ber himself  brought  Tertullian  against  me,  when  he 
believed  that  Father's  testimony  in  favour  of  his  cause: 
then  he  was  represented  as  close  to  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  But  it  is  not  the  authority  of  Tertullian  to 
which  I  wish  in  this  place  to  appeal,  but  solely  to  his 
evidence.  Tertullian,  who  died  in  216,  at  the  age  of 
84,  must  have  been  born  in  1 32.  He  was  brought  up  at 
Rome,  where  he  studied  the  law,  leading  at  that  time 
a  dissolute  lifer  and  ridiculing  the  Christians,  as  he 
himself  informs  us.  He  entered  upon  the  examination 
of  Christianity,  through  mere  curiosity,  embraced  it, 
became  its  illustrious  defender  against  pagans  and 
heretics,  and  found  himself  involved  in  the  great  affairs 
of  the  Church.     What  better  informed  or  more  strictly 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  243 

upright  witness  of  what  was  then  practised  in  the 
churches  could  be  desired?  He  speaks  of  praying  for 
the  dead  as  a  universal  practice,  and  ranks  it  with  the 
points  taught  by  tradition.  Now  what  think  you  of  a 
practice  universally  established  and  come  down  by 
tradition,  less  than  72  years  after  St.  John?  Can  it,  I 
ask  you,  be  other  than  apostolical?  Will  there  be  a 
man  of  sense  among  us,  who  will  be  persuaded  by  the 
assertion  of  Mr.  Faber,  and  contrary  to  that  of  so 
grave  a  witness  of  the  second  century,  that  this  prac- 
tice so  far  from  belonging  to  tradition,  proceeded  from 
an  error  newly  broached  at  a  period  when,  as  the  re- 
formed churches  acknowledge,  doctrine  flourished  in 
its  native  integrity  and  purity? 

XLII.  But  let  us  come  to  an  argument,  which  wili 
cut  short  all  the  entangled  confusion  in  which  Mr. 
Faber  envelopes  his  readers  and  himself,  and  demon- 
strate that  praying  for  the  dead  is  not,  as  he  calls  it, 
a  crude  phantasy  started  by  the  "imaginative"  Tertul- 
lian.  All  the  liturgies  published  from  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  to  the  sixteenth  century,  Catholic,  Nestorian, 
Eutvchian,  Malabar,  Chaldean,  Egyptian,  Abyssinian, 
and  Ethiopian;  those  of  Constantinople,  of  the  Greeks, 
Syrians,  whether  Orthodox  or  Jacobites;  those  of  St. 
Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  James,  explained  in  the 
fourth  century  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem;  that,  in  fine, 
of  the  apostolic  constitutions  written  before  the  others 
in  the  third  century — all  are  uniform  on  this  subject  of 
praying  for  the  dead.  I  have  given  extracts  from  them 
in  my  Appendix,  vol.  2,  p.  259.  Mr.  Faber  does  not 
say  a  word  about  them:  lie  would  make  it  appear  that 
he  did  not  observe  them.  But  pray  ask  him  to  ac- 
count for  this  uniformity  in  the  Liturgies  of  churches 
separated  in  the  fifth  century.  If  he  fail,  all  well  in- 
formed divines  will  answer  you  in  the  words  of  your 
own  Bishop  Bull:  "Ail  the  Christian  churches  in  the 
world,  however  distant  from  each  other,  agree  in  the 
prayer  of  the  oblation  of  the  Christian  sacrifice  in  the 


244  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Holy  Eucharist,  or  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
(and  the  same  applies  to  the  prayers  for  the  dead) 
which  consent  is  indeed  wonderful.  All  the  ancient 
liturgies  agree  in  this  form  of  prayer,  almost  in  the 
same  words,  but  fully  and  exactly  in  the  same  sense, 
order,  and  method;  which  whoever  attentively  consid- 
ers, must  be  convinced,  that  this  order  of  prayer  was 
delivered  to  the  several  churches  in  the  very  first  plan- 
tation and  settlement  of  them."* 

Mr.  Faber,  fond  of  harping  at  words,  will  say  that 
the  liturgies  did  not  suppose  souls  to  be  in  wiiat  we 
understand  by  purgatory.  But  let  him  cavil  as  he 
pleases  against  our  denomination  of  purgatory,  it  is 
certain  that  the  ancients  did  not  pray  for  the  inhabi- 
tants of  heaven,  nor  of  hell.  Where  then  dwelt  the 
souls  for  whom  they  prayed?  In  what  place?  He 
may  call  it  by  what  name  he  chooses;  we  dispute  not 
about  the  name,  but  the  thing.  Let  him  pray  in  the 
style  of  the  ancient  liturgies,  and  say  with  the  aposto- 
lic constitutions:  "Vouchsafe,  O  God,  to  look  upon  thy 
servant  whom  thou  hast  made  to  pass  into  another 
state.  Pardon  him  if  he  has  sinned  wilfully,  or  invol- 
untarily. Place  him  in  the  bosom  of  the  patriarchs, 
prophets,  apostles,  and  all  those  who  had  the  happiness 
to  please  thee  here  below."  Let  him  make  such  a 
prayer  in  all  sincerity:  we  shall  for  the  present  require 
no  more  of  him. 

XLIII.  The  Rev.  Bachelor,  at  page  191,  brings 
against  me  a  passage  from  St.  Cyprian,  and  at  p.  200 
a  sentence  from  Tertullian.  The  latter  is  as  follows: 
"On  a  certain  annual  day  we  make  oblations  for  the 
dead  and  for  nativities."  Mr.  Faber  has  very  justly 
observed  that  the  nativities  indicate  the  days  on  which 
the  departed  saints  dying  to  the  world,  were  born  to 
immortality.  But  he  did  not  observe  that  Tertullian 
has  distinguished  the  dead  from  the  nativities;  that  is, 

*Bp.  Bull  on  Common  Prayer,  sermon  12,  vol.  1 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  245 

those,  who  had  died  a  natural  death,  from  those,  who 
had  lust  their  Uvea  to  receive  the  crown  of  martyrdom. 
The, oblations  were  the  game,  says  Mr.  Faber.  Un- 
doubtedly they  were;  for  it  waft,  and  always  will  be, 
the  oblation  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  new  law,  bloody 
upon  the  cross,  but  unbloody  upon  our  altars.  It  is 
therefore  necessarily  one  and  the  same.  But  the 
prayers  which  accompany  it  were,  and  always  will  be 
different  for  the  saints,  and  for  the  common  faithful 
departed.  They  made  commemoration  of  the  elect  of 
both  testaments,  to  thank  and  glorify  God  in  their 
persons;  and  generally  of  all  that  died,  to  beg  of  God 
to  pardon  them,  and  fix  them  in  a  place  of  light,  repose 
and  happiness.  This,  all  the  liturgies  of  antiquity 
uniformly  shew.  Would  Mr.  Faher  wish  for  a  proof 
from  Tertullian  himself?  Let  him  read  No.  10  of  his 
book  of  Monogamy.  Tertullian  speaking  of  the  ^\ 
who  survives  her  husband,  desires  that  thenceforth  in 
her  widowhood  uShe  should  pray  for  the  soul  of  her 
husband,  solicit  for  him  refreshment,  and  offer  on  the 
anniversaries  of  his  death."  uPro  aninui  ejus  (mariti) 
oret,  refrigerium  interim  adpostulet,  et  offerat  diebus 
dormitationis  ejus."  Bonnitationes  expressed  natural 
deaths ;  natulitio,  the  birth  of  the  martyrs  and  saints 
to  immortality.  Doubtless  Mr.  Faher  will  now  re- 
proach  himself  with  having  made  Tertullian  contra- 
dict himself,  as  well  as  the  liturgies,  which  certainly 
he  constantly  frequented  after  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity. 

I  trust  he  will  find  equal  reason  to  reprove  himself 
with  regard  to  St.  Cyprian,  who  in  the  passage  quoted 
at  p.  191  begins  with  these  words:  "When  once  de- 
parted this  life,  there  is  no  longer  any  place  for  repen- 
tance, nor  for  satisfaction."  The  last  word  must  have 
cost  Mr.  Faber  a  great  deal;  Ids  hand  must  have 
trembled  as  he  wrote  it.  I  am  sorry  to  have  again  to 
bring  it  before  him:  "What  do  they  mean,"  said  this 
Father,  to  those  who  reconciled  sinners  before  the 


246  ANSWER  TO  THE 

time,  "but  that  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  less  appeased  by 
prayers  and  satisfactions?  But  that  sins  shall  no  more 
be  redeemed  by  just  satisfactions?  ....  Let  every 
deep  wound  have  long  and  careful  treatment:  let  not 
the  penance  be  less  than  the  crime."*  And  again: 
"Behold  the  greatest  wounds  of  sin,  behold  the  great- 
est transgressions;  to  have  sinned,  and  not  to  satisfy: 
to  have  offended,  and  not  to  weep."  But  I  am  fa- 
tiguing Mr.  Faber's  ear  too  much  with  the  disagreeable 
words,  satisfy  and  satisfaction.  Let  us  return  to  the 
contradiction  which  would  result  from  the  passage 
quoted  and  explained  by  Mr.  Faber,  and  that  adduced 
by  me  in  the  Discussion  Jlmicale.  Mine  is  as  follows: 
'•Our  predecessors  prudently  advised  that  no  brother 
departing  this  life,  should  nominate  any  churchman  his 
executor;  and  should  he  do  it,  that  no  oblation  should 
be  made  for  him,  nor  sacrifice  offered  for  his  repose." 
And  he  adds  that  Victor  having  contrary  to  this  law, 
nominated  the  priest  Faustinus  his  executor,  unon  est 
quod  pro  dormitione  ejus  apud  vos  fiat  oblatio,  aid 
deprecatio  aliqua  nomine  ejus  in  ecelesiii  frcqiientehir" 
It  is  evident  that  this  law,  and  its  application  to  Victor, 
suppose  the  custom  of  praying  for  the  dead  anterior  to 
St.  Cyprian.  But  Mr.  Faber  would  have  it,  that 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  that  illustrious  primate, 
there  were  only  heaven  or  hell  to  be  expected  after 
death.  Were  that  the  qase,  it  would  be  alike  evident 
that  this  great  man  contradicted  himself. 

But  let  us  comfort  ourselves  for  the  honour  of  St. 
Cyprian,  with  the  assurance  that  the  contradiction  is 
entirely  the  act  of  his  interpreter.  The  works  of 
penance  and  satisfaction  belong  only  to  this  life;  they 
are  strangers  to  the  other  world:  purgatory  knows 
them  not.  That  is  the  abode  of  sorrowful  expiations: 
there  purification  is  effected  by  suffering.     Yet  who 

*  Let.  55  to  Pope  Cornelius.  "Ecce  majora  peccati  vulnera, 
ecce  majora  delicta;  peccasse, -nee  satisfacere;  deliquisse,  nee 
flere." 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  247 

would  not  think  himself  happy  in  this  life,  if  he  were 
certain  of  going  thither  at  his  death?  St.  Cyprian  then 
would  have  had  reason  to  say,  that  even  when  satis- 
faction remains  to  be  made  in  the  next  world,  we  pass 
from  this  life  to  a  blessed  immortality.  But  must  he 
by  this  blessed  immortality  have  meant  heaven?  Even 
so  it  is  unquestionable,  that  after  we  have  done,  as  he 
requires  elsewhere  and  supposes  here,  penance  pro- 
port'oiable  to  the  sins,  which  it  has  been  our  misfor- 
tune to  commit,  we  pass  immediately  from  death  to 
eternal  happiness.  But  what  I  have  here  said  regards 
only  Christians,  and  I  acknowledge  that  St.  Cyprian  in 
this  place  is  not  addressing  them.  He  is  writing  to  a 
pagan  named  Demetrianus.  What  then  is  the  case? 
He  seeks  to  attract  him  to  Christianity;  he  exposes 
the  danger  of  deferring  his  conversion,  and  places  be- 
fore his  eyes  the  salutary  effects  of  faith,  which  from 
repentance  and  confession  necessarily  leads  to  bap- 
tism, and  thus  opens  the  gate  of  heaven  to  those,  who 
have  just  received  the  grace  of  regeneration. 

You  see  that  the  passage  brought  against  me  is  by 
no  means  incompatible  with  purgatory,  and  that  admit- 
ting this  abode  of  temporary  expiation,  St.  Cyprian 
might  well  express  himself  as  he  did,  whether  you  ex- 
den  this  expressions  to  Christians,  who  had  or  had  not 
entirely  satisfied  the  divine  justice  in  this  life;  or  con- 
fine them  to  the  pagan  Demetrianus;  and  since  it  can- 
not be  doubted,  after  what  I  have  quoted  from  St. 
Cyprian,  that  in  his  time,  and  long  before,  praying  for 
the  dead  was  in  use,  that  explanation  must  absolutely 
be  admitted,  which  makes  the  saint  consistent  with 
himself,  with  the  practice  of  the  Church,  and  with  the 
apostolic  liturgies. 

Mr.  Faber  looks  well  indeed,  when  at  p.  204  h  e 
tells  us  with  perfect  satisfaction  at  his  performance: 
aCyprian  I  have  already  disposed  of."* 

*  Epilogue,  p.  337. 


248  ANSWER  TO  THE 

XLIV.  Enquire,  I  entreat  you,  sir,  of  your  learned 
Thorndyke;  he  will  tell  you :  "One  subject  of  refor- 
mation, in  my  opinion,  would  be  to  re-establish  prayers 
for  the  dead,  according  to  the  primitive  sentiment  of 
the  universal  Church:  and  I  maintain  that  the  suppres- 
sion of  such  prayers,  was  not  retrenching  an  abuse, 
but   cutting  to  the  very  quick."     Listen  to  Bishops 
Forbes,  Barrow,  Sheldon,  Blandford,  &c.*     Compare 
your  modem  divines  with  their  predecessors;  and  you 
will  see   that  instead  of  returning  to  antiquity,  they 
every  day  depart  more  widely  from  it.     They  have 
taught  you  to  believe  that  death  breaks  off  all  commu- 
nication between  those,  who  remain  upon  earth,  and 
those,  who  have  quitted  it.     Thus  you  have  accompa- 
nied your  relations  and  friends  with  tears  to  the  grave: 
but  the  stone  once  closed  down  upon  them,  you  have 
left  them  to  their  fate.     You  have  hoped;  it  is  true, 
that  they  were  happy,  but  without  daring  to  pray  for 
their  happiness  to  the  sovereign  Judge.     I  am  well  as- 
sured that  your  affection  for  them  was  not  extinguish- 
ed with  their  life:  but  it  remained  sterile  and  unprofit- 
able to  them.     Educated  in  the  unhappy  principles  of 
a  gloomy  and  discouraging  creed,  you  have  never  yet 
known   the   secret  calm   and  resignation  infused  by 
the  thought  that  we  can  benefit  our  friends  beyond 
the  tomb.     Enter  at  least  now  upon  this  solid  and 
consolatory  belief.     Were   it  imaginary,   were  it  an 
illusion,  it  would  still  be  delightful;  and  cruel  is  that 
reformation,  which  presumes  to  forbid  it.    But  it  is  in- 
contestable, and  a  matter  of  primitive  tradition;  you 
have  seen  that  it  is  built  upon  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles,  and  consequently  upon  that  of  their  divine 
Master.     Hearken  then  no  more  to  those  ignorant  and 
unfeeling  sophists,  who  strive  to  deprive  you  of  a  re- 
source so  precious  to  those,  whose  lot  it  is  to  survive. 
Practice  it  henceforth;  betake  yourselves  to  it  with 

♦Sec  Discussion  Jlmicak,  vol.  2,  pp.  254,  255,  256. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  249 

confidence;  I  venture  to  affirm  that  you  will  find 
it  a  source  of  hope,  of  tender  feelings  and  pious 
emotions. 

INVOCATION   OF   SAINTS. 

XLV.  Mr.  Fabcr's  chapter  XV.  is  a  succession  of 
faults,  mistakes,  and  infidelities,  which  it  would  be 
too  long  and  tedious  to  exhibit  piece  by  piece.  He 
had  just  before  blamed  me  for  adducing  Tertullian  as 
a  witness  of  the  primitive  faith;  and  here  he  himself 
would  have  this  primitive  doctrine  estimated  by  the 
single  testimony  of  St.  Epiphanius,  who  lived  two  cen- 
turies later!  I  had  said  that  Asterius  implored  of 
Phocas  that  intercession,  which  he  himself  had  solicit- 
ed and  obtained  of  the  martyrs;  and  he  makes  me  say 
— p.  227 — that  Asterius  begged  "that  Phocas,  in  the 
ple7iitude  of  his  power,  (these  words  are  an  addition  of 
Mr.  Faber's)  would  give  to  his  survivors  those  bles- 
sings, which  he  himself  possessed!"  I  quoted  in  favor 
of  the  Invocation  of  Saints,  St.  Irenaeus,  Origen,  StJ 
Athanasius,  Eusebius,  St.  Ephrem,  St.  Augustin,  St 
Ambrose,  and  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedor, 
that  is  to  say,  the  brilliant  ages  of  the  Church,  admitted 
as  such  by  the  most  able  Protestants;  and  this  man  re- 
proves me  for  so  doing!  He  does  not  then  comprehend 
now  these  great  doctors,  these  learned  bishops,  revered 
as  saints  even  by  the  followers  of  the  reformation,  could 
have  been  other  than  Idolaters!  Nor  does  he  blush  to 
charge  them  with  idolatry,  by  attributing  sentiments 
to  them,  which  they  never  entertained!  Let  it  suffice 
for  me  to  reply  that  the  testimonies  of  these  great  per- 
sonages of  antiquity  will  undoubtedly  weigh  a  little 
more  towards  establishing  the  apostolicity  of  any  dog- 
matical usage,  than  the  high  authority  of  the  Rector  of 
Long  Newton,  towards  overturning  it. 

XLVI.  He  next  proceeds  to  shew,  p.  231,  that  the 
idolatry  of  the  early  ages  has  passed  down  from  hand 
to  hand  in  the  Catholic  Church,  where  it  still  holdg 
22 


250  ANSWER  TO  THE 

sovereign  sway.  He  quotes  from  the  Hours  accord- 
ing to  the  use  of  Salisbury,  and  draws  his  proofs  from 
the  comments  upon  them,  left  us  by  the  learned  and 
truth-telling  Burnet.  •  He  sets  out  with  informing  us 
that  these  Hours  were  even  printed  at  Paris  in  1 520; 
and  with  powerful  logic  he  concludes  from  their  Pari- 
sian date,  that  it  seems  abundantly  evident,  that  they 
met  with  very  general  acceptation  among  what  the 
bishop  styles  the  Catholic  body.  Let  us  not  disturb 
him  in  the  "abundant  evidence"  of  his  splendid  con- 
clusion. Without  taking  the  trouble  to  search  out  the 
old  rubric  of  Sarum,  he  need  only  have  opened  our 
breviaries  and  the  liturgical  books  in  daily  use  among 
us.  He  would  have  found  there  the  same  hymns,  the 
same  invocations  to  the  blessed  Virgin  and  the  Saints; 
and  with  the  honest  and  charitable  industry,  which  he 
is  so  fond  of  exercising,  he  might  have  easily  changed 
our  prayers  into  acts  of  detestable  idolatry. 

Would  you  wish  to  know,  sir,  how  he  proceeds  to 
convert  our  devotions  into  idolatry?  He  separates 
certain  passages,  certain  words,  suppresses  those  that 
precede  or  follow,  and  thus  by  a  very  honest  process, 
he  succeeds  in  giving  them  a  sense,  which  they  were 
never  meant  to  convey.  In  the  hymn  to  the  blessed 
Virgin,  which  so  particularly  offends  him,  he  suppres- 
ses this  verse:  Monstra  te  esse  matrem,  Sumat  per  te 
preces,  Qui  pro  nobis  natus,  Tulit  esse  tuus.  Show 
thyself  a  mother,  and  let  him,  who  for.  us  deigned  to 
become  thy  Son,  through  thee,  hear  our  prayers.  As 
also  the  words,  bona  cuncta  posce,  obtain  for  us  all  good 
things,  and  consequently  all  those,  expressed  in  the  insu- 
lated verses  produced  by  Mr.  Faber.  In  this  manner 
those  words,  which  serve  to  explain  all  the  rest,  are 
adroitly  concealed  by  him.  He  only  exhibits  such 
passages  as  he  chose  to  extract,  in  imitation  of  his 
master  the  faithful  Burnet;  and  thus  the  hymn  appears 
entirely  covered  with  a  shining  varnish  of  idolatry. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  251 

You  will  readily  conceive  that  Mr.  Faber  has  taken 
good  care  not  to  let  those  versicles  and  prayers  appear 
which  follow  the  above  hymn,  and  all  those  which  we 
address  to  the  blessed  Virgin.  One  of  the  versicles  is 
as  follows;  "Pray  for  us,  O  holy  Mother  of  God;  that 
we  may  he  made  worthy  of  the  promises  of  Christ." 
In  the  subsequent  prayers,  you  will  find  the  interces- 
sion expressed  in  direct  terms:  "intercedentc  sanctissi- 
ma  Dei  genitrice. — Beatce  Virginis  JWaricz  interccssio 
gloriosa  nos  protegat;  Genetricis  Filii  tui  intercessione 
sahemur,  fyc"  Mr.  Faber  would  have  apparently 
required  that  the  word  intercession  should  be  repeated 
in  every  verse.  I  fear  Mr.  Faber  is  no  poet;  if  he  is, 
he  must  know  that  the  measure  would  not  admit  of  all 
this  dogmatical  exactness,  and  that  the  short  lines  of 
our  hymns  reject  words  of  live  syllables.  Let  him 
not  then  be  so  hard  upon  our  sacred  poets,  but  allow 
them  some  license  in  favour  of  metre  and  precision; 
and  instead  of  interrupting  their  free  and  rapid  course, 
assist  their  words  by  supposing  throughout,  what  they 
every  where  wish  to  be  understood. 

But  on  the  contrary,  he  is  so  blinded  by  the  mania 
of  viewing  us  as  absolute  idolaters,  that  he  does  not 
observe  the  intercession  of  Mary  traced  by  his  own 
hand  in  the  very  prayers,  which  he  quotes,  and  in 
which  he  pretends  that  we  invoke  her  as  omnipotent. 
P.  232 — uBxj  thy  pious  intervention  wash  away  our 
sins."  "Have  me  excused  with  Christ  thy  Son"  P. 
233. — Pray  for  the  people,  interpose  on  behalf  of  the 
clergy,  intercede  for  tlie  devout  female  sex"  He  gravely 
attributes  the  prayer  containing  these  last  words  to 
the  Church  of  Salisbury,  and  little  suspects  that  it  is 
taken  word  for  word  from  St.  Augustin,  from  an  ad- 
mirable prayer  composed  by  that  splendid  genius,  and 
which  the  Bachelor  would  not  repeat,  or  report  without 
horror. 

For  our  part,  sir,  we  have  been  taught  by  pious  and 
learned  antiquity  to  invoke  the  most  holy  of  creatures, 


252  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Mary,  mother  of  our  Saviour,  and  all  the  Saints;  and 
they  solicit  in  our  behalf.  Our  invocation  is  made 
upon  earth;  their  intercession,  in  heaven.  Thus  a 
continual  religious  intercourse  is  kept  up  between  the 
inhabitants  of  both  worlds,  between  the  blessed,  who 
enjoy  the  happiness  of  heaven,  and  mortals  exposed 
to  the  dangers  of  a  life  of  storms  and  tribulations. 
This  is  what  we  call  the  Communion  of  Saints,  a  con- 
soling doctrine,  a  source  of  charming  and  pure  delights 
of  which  you  would  partake  with  us,  if  your  dry  and 
gloomy  doctrines  had  not  taught  you  to  dread  it  as  a 
fanciful  bug- bear. 

XLVII.  We  have  told  your  divines  a  hundred  times, 
and  we  will  not  cease  to  tell  them,  till  at  last  we  drive 
it  into  their  heads,  that  idolatry  is  no  less  odious  to  us, 
than  to  them;  that  we  reject  the  very  idea  of  it  far 
from  us  in  our  prayers;  that  we  should  hold  it  blasphe- 
my to  say  to  the  most  holy  of  creatures  what  we 
address  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  blasphemy  to  address 
Jesus  Christ  as  we  do  holy  creatures.  Witness  our 
litanies,  where  we  repeat  to  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary 
and  the  Saints:  "pray  for  us;"  but  to  Jesus  Christ, 
uhave  mercy  on  its — deliver  us — graciously  hear  us" 
In  a  word,  however  strong  may  be  the  poetical  ex- 
pressions in  our  hymns,  intercession  is  always  under- 
stood by  us  of  necessity  and  right,  whenever  it  is  not 
repeated.  Mr.  Faber  had  very  judiciously  observed, 
p.  x.  of  his  preface,  that  "to  charge  a  Latin  (a  Catho- 
lic) with  "what  he  holds  not,  and  then  gravely  to  con- 
fute opinions  which  all  the  while  he  strenuously  dis- 
claims, is  alike  unfair  and  unprofitable.  And  here  he 
is  employing  this  unfair  and  unprofitable  method  him- 
self! Ex  ore  tuo  tejudico!  Let  him  cease  therefore 
to  contradict  himself,  to  condemn  himself,  and  to  bring 
against  us  a  charge  of  idolatry,  which  we  shall  never 
cease  to  repel  with  all  the  energy  in  our  power. 

For  the  rest,  be  it  known  to  him,  for  he  has  forgot- 
ten what  he  must  have  read  in  the  book,  which  he 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  2.53 

professed  to  adopt  as  a  text  for  his  refutation — be  it 
Known  to  him  that  though  we  admit  the  invocation  of 
Saints  as  useful  and  profitable,  we  do  not  hold  it  to  be 
absolutely  necessary,  acting  according  as  the  Council 
of  Trent  has  decided.  What  does  he  mean  then  by 
the  conclusion  of  his  note  at  p.  234,  and  the  quotation 
which  overturn  his  thesis  instead  of  supporting  it? 
What  signifies  the  question  proposed  with  such  assur- 
ance to  his  readers,  with  an  emphatical  tone  complete- 
ly ridiculous?  "When  such  rituals  were  approved 
and  commonly  used  in  the  Latin  Church  of  the  West, 
was,  or  was  not,  a  reformation  necessary?"  In  my 
turn,  I  have  a  question  to  put  to  him,  resting  on  a  very 
different  foundation.  Let  him  produce  an  answer. 
"All  that  uproar  and  overthrow  of  every  thing  reli- 
gious and  political,  was  it,  or  %vas  it  not  necessary  to 
abolish  that,  which  was  never  held  to  be  necessary?" 

RELICS. 

Let  us  endeavour  to  come  to  a  conclusion:  for  in 
truth,  disgust  makes  the  pen  drop  out  of  my  hand;  and 
yet  the  most  odious  parts  would  remain  to  be  refuted, 
were  I  as  much  affected  at  the  insults  offered  to  me, 
as  at  those  directed  against  truth  and  religion.  I  will 
confine  myself  now  to  a  few  passing  reflections,  short 
and  rapid.  And  first,  on  the  subject  of  Relics,  I  must 
observe,  what  I  have  alreadv  had  to  remark  over  and 
over  again,  that  the  Bachelor  makes  me  still  say  what 
I  never  did  say,  and  even  the  very  opposite  to  my  own 
words;  and  that  he  delights  in  repeating  it,  in  order  to 
impress  it  upon  his  readers.  The  following  are.  my 
words  at  the  bottom  of  p.  309,  vol.  2.  "They  talk  of 
the  erroneous  and  superstitious  notions,  which  people 
have  often  entertained  on  the  subject  of  relies;  I  do 
not  deny  that  such  has  been  the  case."*     Mr.  Faber 

»  On  parle  dc  notions,  erronecs,  superstitieuscs,  que  les  peuples 
ont  sou  Tent  prises,  sur  les  reliques;  ju  u'tn  disconviendrai  pa*. 


254  ANSWER  TO  THE 

gives  my  sentence  as  follows:  "Men  talk  of  erroneous 
and  superstitious  notions,  which  ive  have  often  taken 
up  concerning  relics:  but  I  have  never  been  able  to  dis- 
cover them" — page  245.  You  see  he  exhibits  through- 
out, the  same  tactics,  the  same  upright  and  honourable 
proceedings! 

The  Rev.  Bachelor  next  affects  the  esprit  fort  on  the 
subject  of  miracles  wrought  by  occasion  and  in  pre- 
sence of  relics:  he  will  not  even  listen  to  those r  which 
he  finds  solemnly  attested  by  such  illustrious  men  as 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  or  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St. 
Ambrose,  an  eye-witness  equally  with  St.  Augustin, 
who  was  then  at  Milan.  See  Discussion  Amicale,  vol. 
2,  p.  315.  Let  us  congratulate  the  Bachelor  on  his 
high  opinion  of  his  own  wisdom,  and  the  perfect  self- 
confidence,  which  he  perpetually  exhibits.  Rest  assur- 
ed, sir,  that  he  knows  much  more  about  what  took  place 
at  Milan  nearly  1 500  years  ago,  than  the  learned  and 
holy  archbishop  of  that  metropolis;  who  when  he  learned 
that  certain  Arians  in  that  city  called  in  question  the 
miraculous  cure  of  a  blind  man,  of  which  he  himself 
had  been  an  eye-witness,  mounted  the  pulpit  the  fol- 
lowing day,  and  publicly  proved  the  fact  before  an 
immense  assembly. 

THE  SIGN  OF  THE  CROSS. 

But  the  powers  of  vision  possessed  by  the  oracle  seat- 
ed in  Durham,  penetrate  still  farther  into  the  darkness 
of  remote  ages.  Go  and  consult  him  at  Long  Newton; 
ask  him  why  the  Christians  in  the  second  century 
gigned  their  foreheads  with  the  sign  of  the  crossr 
when  they  rose  in  the  morning,  when  they  lay 
down  at  night,  before  work,  before  and  after  meals, 
&c.  Ask  him  the  reason;  he  will  tell  you,  and  be 
sure  to  rely  on  his  word,  do  not  listen  to  such  a 
man  as  Tertullian.  This  Father  acknowledges  that 
such  a  custom  observed  so  faithfully  did  not  come 
from  any  gospel  precept,  but  solely  from  tradition. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  255 

You  will  perfectly  understand  what  must  have  been 
the  source  of  a  custom  established  by  tradition  in  the 
second  century.  But  Mr.  Faber  decidedly  pronounces 
that  it  did  not  come  from  tradition;  he  understands  and 
maintains  that  it  is  no  older  than  Tertullian;  that  the 
custom  and  the  Father  entered  the  world  much  about 
the  same  time — p.  286.  It  is  evident  that  his  ideas 
must  be  more  correct  than  those  of  the  learned  Afri- 
can, as  to  what  was  believed  and  practised  seventy 
years  after  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  Happy  is  the 
Church  of  England  to  foster  in  her  bosom  so  bright 
and  even  miraculous  a  luminary!  Really  the  more  I 
think,  the  more  I  am  persuaded  that  this  gentleman 
must  be  inspired:  and  here  is  my  proof. — If  he  were 
not,  could  he  himself  go  so  far  as  to  imagine  that  he 
knows  the  second  century  better  than  the  most  ad- 
mired man  of  that  period?  Would  he  dare  to  give 
the  lie  to  that  celebrated  personage,  and  on  a  fact 
in  its  nature  so  notorious,  since  the  old  men  of  that 
time  must  have  known  perfectly  well,  whether  when 
they  were  young  people  they  made  the  sign  of  the 
cross?  How  then  stands  the  case?  Tertullian  attests 
that  the  practice  of  signing  the  cross  on  the  forehead 
came  from  a  custom  more  ancient  and  handed  down  by 
tradition-,  and  here  Mr.  Faber  says  to  him  in  equiva- 
lent terms:  "It  is  not  so;  but  the  practice  began  in  your 
own  time;  you  saw  its  beginning;  and  1  am  even  tempt- 
ed from  your  evident  peevishness  when  asked  for  a 
scriptural  proof  of  its  obligation,  to  suspect  that  you 
may  have  been  the  author  of  it  yourself."  This  lan- 
guage proves  indisputably  one  of  these  two  things; 
either  inspiration,  or  a  certain  degree  of  folly.  But 
assuredly  a  grave  and  learned  Rector  could  not  be  ac- 
cused of  the  latter.  Therefore  we  must  acknowledge 
his  inspiration. 

I  observe  that  towards  the  end  of  the  Difficulties  of 
Romanism,  Mr.  Faber  no  longer  admits  any  authority 
but  Scripture.     If  he  does  not  find  there  every  letter  of 


256  ANSWER  TO  THE 

what  you  maintain  against  him,  he  accuses  you  with- 
out ceremony  of  gross  ignorance,  and  mere  unscriptu- 
ral  superstition.  At  the  beginning  he  was  more  polite, 
and  more  respectful  towards  oral  and  primitive  tradi- 
tions. He  did  homage  to  them;  he  acknowledged  their 
authority:  several  times  he  attempted  to  support  him- 
self upon  them  against  my  assertions;  and  it  has  been 
seen  with  what  success.  However,  I  content  myself 
here  with  observing  that  on  the  Invocation  of  Saints, 
Relics,  and  the  Sign  of  the  Cross  he  pays  no  longer 
any  regard  to  primitive  traditions,  and  those  authori- 
ties, which  he  delighted  to  quoterwhen  he  conceived 
them  favourable  to  his  cause.  This  contradiction  of 
mind  and  opinion  is  not  exactly  insanity;  it  would  be 
wrong  to  pronounce  it  so:  it  is  only  caprice,  and  versa- 
tility of  principle. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

L.  By  beginning  his  refutation  with  my  third  Letter, 
after  announcing  in  his  preface  that  he  should  follow 
me  step  by  step,  Mr.  Faber  led  me  to  believe  that  he 
considered  it  most  prudent  not  to  enter  upon  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  two  preceding  Letters.  I  had  no  ex- 
pectation of  what  I  discovered  as  I  advanced  further 
in  my  reply,  that  he  had  deferred  the  examination  of 
the  first  to  the  second  Chapter  of  his  Book  II.  page 
309.  He  has  nothing  to  say  against  the  historical 
summary  of  the  establishment  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
at  the  l>eginning  of  my  work.  He  attacks  the  conse- 
quences which  I  deduced  from  it,  but  he  does  not  in 
the  least  invalidate  them.  They  remain  strictly  cor- 
rect, and  my  arguments  retain  all  their  strength.* 

•Mr.  Faber  has  no  just  idea  of  the  jurisdiction  and  character  of 
a  bishop.  He  confounds  the  one  with  the  other  in  what  he  calls 
the  power  of  order.  Consecration  Lrives  the  character:  mission  im- 
parts jurisdiction,  which  is  lost  by  schism,  while  the  character  re- 
mains, because  that  is  indelible.  If  the  consecration  of  Parker  had 
been  valid,  he  would  have  received  the  character,  but  not  jurisdic- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  257 

I  argued  the  nullity  of  your  church  establishment, 
not  from  the  character  of  Elizabeth,  as  Mr.  Faber  sup- 
poses, but  from  licr  radical  defect  of  competency. 
The  only  method  by  Which  he  could  refute  me,  would 
have  been  to  prove  that  Elizabeth  had  a  right  to  bring 
about  the  change,  which  she  effected  by  violence;  and 
this  he  has  not  even  attempted  to  demonstrate.  On  the 
contrary,  you  shall  see  how  he  himself  furnishes  me 
with  a  fresh  proof  of  the  incompetency  of  that  Queen. 
"Suppose,"  says  he,  p.  314,  "that  we  were  deprived 
of  our  present  legal  establishment:  what  would  be  the 
consequence?  Should  we  lose  our  spiritual  authority  as 
bishops  or  as  presbyters?  Such,  I  apprehend,  would 
by  no  means  be  the  result ....  The  spiritual  power  of 
order  we  assuredly  derived  not  from  Elizabeth:  hence, 
of  that  power  no  present  or  future  Sovereign  of  Eng- 
land can  deprive  us."  It  is  certain  that  temporal  rulers 
have  only  a  right  to  take  away  what  they  gave.  It  is 
equally  certain  that  they  never  could  give  spiritual  au- 
thority; nor  in  consequence,  take  it  away.  Therefore 
Elizabeth  could  not  take  away  sprit  ual  authority  from 
the  Catholic  bishops,  who  occupied  their  sees,  before  she 
occupied  her  throne.  Therefore  they  preserved  their 
authority:  therefore  the  successors  she  gave  them  were 
mere  intruders,  without  power  and  without  jurisdic- 
tion. In  a  word,  Elizabeth  had  undoubtedly  a  right  to 
deprive  the  Catholic  bishops  of  their  palaces,  their 
revenues,  and  their  places  in  parliament:  for  they  held 
these  temporal  advantages  from  the  Crown,  but  their 
spiritual  power  came  not  from  the  Crown  as  Mr. 
Faber  has  so  justly  maintained.  I  was  right  then  in 
saying,  and  he  must  from  his  own  principles  acknow- 
ledge it;  that  "without  a  right  to  throw  down,  and 

tion;  which  the  four  consecrutors,  heing  in  open  revolt  against  the 
Church,  could  not  have,  and  of  course  could  not  impart  to  him. — 
When  speaking  of  the  submission  due  to  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
and  head  of  the  universal  Church,  Mr.  Fab  r  allows  himself  to 
designate  him  disdainfully  as  "an  Italian  prelate,"  "a  bishop  of 
Italy,"  he  only  adds  a  pitiful  insult  to  his  bad  defence  of  a  worse 
cause. 


253  ANSWER  TO  THE 

without  a  right  to  re-build,  her  (Elizabeth's)  underta- 
king was  null  from  the  beginning."* 

SUPREMACY. 

LI.  In  chapter  III.  page  319,  Mr.  Faber  enters 
upon  a  long  dissertation,  which  corresponds  to  no  part 
of  my  work.  He  directs  it  against  the  primacy  of  the 
holy  see,  and  begins  by  justifying  the  separation  under 
Elizabeth,  by  the  right,  which  he  attributes  to  every 
national  Church  to  choose  such  a  form  of  government 
for  herself,  as  she  shall  think  proper;  as  if  it  could  be 
proper  to  choose  for  herself  any  other,  than  the  one 
which  Jesus  Christ  himself  traced  out  for  the  universal 
Church.  Bp.  Jewel  in  his  apology,  justifies  the  schism 
by  the  necessity  of  departing  from  a  Church  degen- 
erated, and  disfigured  by  her  innovations,  her  idolatry, 
and  her  errors,  on  the  subject  of  the  real  presence; 
thus  designating  as  innovations,  errors  and  idolatry, 
the  dogmas,  which  you  have  seen  taught  and  practised 
by  the  primitive  Church. 

Mr.  Faber  proceeds  next  to  the  supremacy;  against 
which  he  renews  old  attacks,  a  hundred  times  repel- 
led, and  with  which,  for  that  reason,  I  shall  not  here 
occupy  my  attention.  I  shall  only  make  some  rapid 
reflections  on  certain  allegations  contained  in  this 
chapter. 

According  to  this  author,  and  in  opposition  to  the 
universal  belief  of  all  parties,  St.  Peter  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  St.  Linus. 
The  proof  he  adduces  is  precisely  the  proof  of  the 
contrary.  For  he  insists  that  St.  Linus  was  chosen 
by  the  common  consent  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul. 
But  before  the  arrival  of  St.  Paul,  at  Rome,  St.  Peter 

*  See  vol.  1,  p.  11,  of  the  Discussion  Jlmicale,2i  very  striking  pas- 
sage from  Dod well  quoted  in  a  note.  It  seems  to  have  been  written 
expressly  to  demonstrate  the  nullity  of  your  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tion through  the  incompetency  of  the  Queen  and  her  parliament. 
It  is  also  quoted  in  the  1st  part  ch.  1,  No.  2,  of  the  present  Answer^ 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  259 

had  founded  the  Church  there,  and  governed  it  lor 
some  years.  Therefore  he  was  its  first  Bishop;  and 
St.  Linus  was  called  in  the  same  manner  as  St.  Ignatius 
was  of  Antioch,  the  first  Bishop  of  that  See  after  St. 
Peter.  For  this  reason,  St.  Irenaeus  speaking  of  St. 
Clement's  elevation  to  the  See  of  Rome,  styles  him 
the  third  Bishop  from  the  death  of  the  apostles.* 

St.  Irenaeus  thus  expresses  himself  on  the  See  of 
Rome:  "Ad  banc  ecclesiam,  propter  potentiorem  prin- 
cipalitatem,  necesse  est  omnem  convenire  ecclesiam; 
hoc  est,  eos  qui  sunt  undique  fideles."  Mr.  Faber 
thus  translates  the  passage  in  a  note  at  p.  345:  "To 
the  Roman  Church,  on  account  of  its  more  potent 
principality,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church  should 
resort;  that  is  to  say,  those  of  the  faithful  who  dwell 
on  every  side  of  it."  The  text  does  not  say,  those  of 
the  faithful  who  dwell  on  every  side  of  it;  but  the  faith- 
ful who  are  on  every  side.  He  had  just  said  every 
Church;  therefore  he  adds  likewise,  all  the  faithful. 
And  in  fact,  in  the  time  of  St.  Irenaeus,  the  Churches 
of  Smyrna  and  Corinth  had  already  recurred  to 
Rome  in  affairs  of  importance.  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  word  resort,  which  Mr.  Faber  prefers  to 
agree  with,  which  we  commonly  employ,  renders  very 
energetically  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  see:  for 
people  only  resort  to  superior  authority .f 

*  Post  Jnacletum  tertio  loco  ab  apostolis,  episcopatum  sortitur  Cle- 
mens.    Iren.  adv.  Haer.  lib.  III.  c.  3,  §  2,  quoted  by  Mr.  Faber. 

t  In  a  note,  p.  346,  Mr.  Faber  supposes  that  in  the  above  pas- 
sage St.  Irenaeus  recommends  the  circumjacent  churches  to  resort 
to  Rome  partly  to  inspect  the  autographs  of  the  apostles,  in  case 
of  any  doctrinal  difficulty.  Let  him  attend  on  this  subject  to  the 
following  admirable  observations  of  a  celebrated  German  divine: 
"Qui  ecclesiam  sine  litteris  scriptis  fundavit,  rnultisque  annis  con- 
servavit,  ipse  etsine  autographis  veram  in  ea  fidem,  ac  puram  doc- 
triuamconservavit  servatque.  Nee  unquam  Jesus  Christus  dixe- 
rat,  qui  non  legerit  codicem  sacrum,  sed  quinon  audieret  ecclesi- 
am, sis  quasi  ethnicus  et  publicanus;  nee  unquam  S.  Paulus  suis 
mandavit,  et  codicem  aut  epistolas  custodirent;  bene  tamen  deposi- 
tum  fidei,  quod  tradidit  ipsis." 

B interim  Epist.  Cath.  de  lingua  originali  A*.  Test. — Note  of  the 
Translator. 


260  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Tertullian,  who  was  converted  at  Rome,  towards 
the  middle  of  the- second  century,  and  who  lived  af- 
terwards under  the  primates  of  Africa,  gives  to  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  the  same  title,  which  we  give  at  this 
day,  that  of  sovereign  pontiff.  This  Mr.  Faber  admits: 
but  he  wrangles  about  St.  Cyprian,  and  proves  no- 
thing after  all,  but  that  this  learned  and  illustrious  pri- 
mate of  Carthage  admitted  no  infallibility  in  the  Pope, 
no  more  than  Firmilian,  the  churches  of  the  islands, 
and  of  Africa.  It  is  utterly  false  that  St.  Cyprian  ever 
opposed  or  disputed  that  Pope  St.  Stephen  was  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter.  St.  Cyprian  wrote  as  follows 
to  Antonianus:  "Cornelius  has  just  been  made  bishop 
of  Rome,  the  place  of  Fabian,  that  is,  that  of  Peter, 
and  the  step  of  the  sacerdotal  chair  having  become 
vacant."  Nothing  certainly  could  be  more  clear  and 
precise. 

The  passage  of  St.  Cyprian,  which  Mr.  Fab^r  would 
turn  against  the  holy  see,  becomes  even  stronger  in 
its  favour  and  more  decisive,  by  his  own  explanation 
of  it.  You  will  see  this  by  the  note  at  p.  348  of  Mr. 
Faber's  book;   "Cyprian  speaks  of  one  chair  founded 

upon  Peter  by  the  voice  of  the  Lord By  this  chair, 

he  meant,  not  the  see  of  Rome  in  particular,  but  tlie 
chair  of  the  collective  united  episcopate  in  general. "  If 
this  be  the  case,  it  is  most  evident  that  not  only  the 
chair  of  Rome,  but  all  the  episcopal  chairs  in  the 
world  are  founded  upon  Peter,  and  consequently  upon 
his  successors.  It  is  impossible  to  say  more  for  the 
universal  supremacy  of  the  see  of  Rome:  see  then  how 
error  betrays  itself! 

The  Greeks  acknowledged  the  primacy  of  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  Holy  Father  at  the  Council  of  Florence,  and 
more  remotely  in  that  of  Lyons,  as  they  had  done  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity  to  the  time  of  Photius. 
On  that  acoount  the  deputies  of  the  holy  see  presided 
by  universal  "consent  at  the  first  Council  of  Nice,  at 
that  of  Constantinople,  &c.    For  that  reason  St.  Poly- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  261 

carp,  at  ninety  years  of  age,  crossed  the  seas,  and  went 
to  render  an  account  to  Pope  Anicetus  of  the  reasons 
which  attached  the  churches  of  Asia  to  the  custom  of 
celebrating  Easter  on  the  14th  day  of  the  moon:  it  was 
moreover  on  that  account  that  the  Corinthians  sent  a 
deputation,  not  to  St.  Clement,  who  was  not  then  in 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  as  Mr.  Faber  seems  to  suppose, 
but  to  St.  Anacletus,  to  induce  him  to  interpose  his  au- 
thority to  repress  the  schism,  which  threatened  their 
Church. 

LII.  1  must  beg  Mr.  Faber  to  explain,  why,  in  his 
discussion  of  the  claims  of  the  holy  see  to  supremacy, 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  chose  to  pass  over  in 
silence  the  celebrated  text;  feed  my  lambs — -feed  my 
lambs, — feed  my  sheep.  Here  are  most  certainly  uni- 
versal superintendance  and  jurisdiction  given  to  St. 
Peter,  and  in  his  person  to  his  successors.  If  Mr.  Fa- 
ber has  any  desire  to  be  comprised  in  the  flock  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  he  must  acknowledge  the  shepherd  placed 
at  the  head  of  it  by  our  divine  Saviour.  If  he  persists 
in  refusing  to  acknowledge  him,  he  voluntarily  sepa- 
rates himself  from  the  sheep  and  lambs  of  Jesus  Christ. 
I  seriously  invite  him,  his  readers  and  mine,  to  medi- 
tate on  this  awful  consequence,  and  apply  it  in  earnest 
to  themselves. 

PROJECT  FOR  RE-UNION. 

LIII.  To  my  great  surprise,  Mr.  Faber  appears  at 
p.  355  to  represent  me  as  a  kind  of  plenipotentiary  to 
the  Anglican  Church  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation 
between  her  and  ourselves.  I  am  represented  as  un- 
dertaking to  promise  for  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
propose  concessions  on  the  one  hand  and  adoptions  on 
the  other.  This  reminds  me  of  what  Lord  Chester- 
field writes  to  his  son,  which  I  also  recommend  to 
Mr.  Faber:  "See  what  you  see;  read  what  you  read." 
He  did  not  read  what  he  read;  he  read  what  he  did 
23 


262  ANSWER  TO  THE 

not  and  could  not  read  in  my  book,  for  I  have  written 
no  such  thing.  Nevertheless  I  can  hardly  find  fault 
with  Mr.  Faber,  since  some  of  my  own  countrymen 
have  given  into  the  same  mistake,  if  I  may  credit  re- 
ports which  I  have  heard.  1  must  rectify  the  error  of 
both  parties.  I  did  then  advance  that  though  faith  is 
unchangeable,  discipline  is  not  so;  and  that  if  conces- 
sions on  the  former  were  impossible,  they  might  be 
made  on  the  latter.  I  named  some  of  these  possible 
concessions,  after  the  example  of  Bossuet,  choosing, 
as  he  did,  such  as  would  be  best  relished  by  Protes- 
tants. 

But  it  is  one  thing  to  say  that  such  or  such  conces- 
sions might  be  made,  and  another,  to  promise  that 
they  will  be  "freely  conceded."  Here  are  two 
questions:  the  first  may  be  decided  by  any  individual; 
the  second,  by  the  Church  alone.  What  are  the  arti- 
cles of  discipline  susceptible  of  change?  All.  What 
are  those  which  it  would  be  expedient  to  change,  for 
obtaining  the  return  of  a  separated  people?  To  the 
Church  alone  belongs  the  right  to  answer. 

For  many  years  have  I  ardently  desired  the  return 
of  the  nations  departed  from  unity.  For  many  years 
it  has  appeared  to  me  that  it  would  not  be  impossible 
to  bring  them  back:  and  my  reading  and  reflections, 
no  less  than  my  desires,  have  spontaneously  turned  to 
an  object  so  much  wished  for  by  all  good  men. 

I  have  thought  that  the  period  in  which  we  live, 
presented  more  favourable  chances  of  re-union  among 
Christians  than  any  time  preceding.  On  the  one  hand, 
three  centuries  of  commotions,  of  overthrows,  of  ani- 
mated controversies,  of  intestine  and  cruel  wars,  have 
fatigued  the  earth:  on  the  other,  the  world  is  terrified 
at  the  number  of  sects  which  the  leading  principle  of 
the  reformation  has  produced,  and  after  them,  the  in- 
credulity, which  has  already  caused  so  many  revolu- 
tions, and  threatens  nations  and  sovereigns  with  yet 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  263 

more.*  It  must  be  evident  that  if  temporal  interests 
formerly  induced  princes  to  adopt  the  reformation, 
temporal  interests  of  a  higher  nature  involving  their 
very  existence  ought  in  these  days  to  convince  them, 
that  there  can  be  no  repose  and  no  security  for  them, 
but  under  the  guardianship  of  unity,  and  of  one  su- 
preme authority  in  matters  of  revelation.  I  have  said 
to  myself  many  times,  will  not  Christians  at  length  listen 
to  their  own  experience?  Will  they  condemn  them- 
selves to  pass  their  days  in  dissentions  and  troubles;  and 
leave  the  same  inheritance  to  their  posterity?  Re- 
deemed by  the  same  blood,  regenerated  by  the  same- 
baptism,  called  to  the  same  hopes,  to  the  happiness  of 
another  world,  will  they  never  give  each  other  the 
hand  of  union  in  this?  Will  they  be  forever  seen  se- 
parated in  communion,  prayer,  and  worship?  God  our 
Saviour  declared  that  he  would  have  on  earth  but  one 
sheepfold,  one  flock,  one  shepherd;  and  can  they  in 
defiance  of  the  order  by  him  established,  feel  assurance 
and  delight  in  a  multitude  of  flocks  and  sheepfolds? 
No;  there  must  either  be  a  speedy  end  of  this  disorder, 
or  the  termination  of  all  human  things. 

In  the  midst  of  these  reflections,  I  became  very  sen- 
sible that  to  lead  mankind  to  one  belief,  the  first  step 
must  be  to  prove  its  truth.  I  was  perfectly  aware  of 
the  difficulty  of  such  an  undertaking;  nor  should  I 
have  attempted  to  surmount  it,  had  I  reckoned  solely 
upon  my  own  ability.  My  only  confidence  was  in 
Him,  who  had  so  long  inspired  me  with  the  thought 
and  resolution.  I  never  ceased  to  implore  his  assis- 
tance and  all-powerful  grace  in  the  course  of  my 
researches  and  labours.     Subsequently,  the  result  was 

•"Divisions  in  religion  when  multiplied,  are  sources  of  athe- 
ism:" so  said  Bacon;  and  never  was  the  assertion  so  fatally  verifi- 
ed as  it  has  been  in  our  days. 

"By  so  many  paradoxes,  the  foundations  of  our  religion  are  shak- 
en, the  principle  articles  are  called  in  question,  heresies  enter  in 
crowds  into  the  churches  of  Christ,  and  the  road  is  thrown  open  to 
atheism."     Sturmer,  Ratio  ineundce  concordia  An.  1579,  p.  2, 


264  ANSWER  TO  THE 

submitted  to  enlightened  friends:  I  wished  it  to  be 
placed  before  well  informed  persons  of  other  commu- 
nions. It  was  so;  and  not  always  without  approbation, 
and  some  effect.  An  antagonist  has  at  length  arisen, 
who  certainly  is  not  wanting  in  penetration  of  mind, 
facility  of  language,  or  elegance  of  style;  why  am  I 
not  permitted  to  add,  in  sincerity,  love  of  union  and 
experience  in  matters  of  theology!  By  turns  he  extols 
the  character  of  the  author,  with  whom  he  is  unac- 
quainted, and  abuses  the  book  which  is  before  him. 
He  is  wrong  in  both:  in  his  commendations,-  which  un- 
happily the  author  does  not  in  any  degree  deserve: 
and  in  his  critique  upon  the  Discussion  Amicale,  which 
this  answer  will,  I  flatter  myself,  have  placed  above 
the  reach  of  his  censures.  He  decomposes  my  proofs, 
adds  or  retrenches,  changes  my  words,  palms  upon 
me  his  own,  substitutes  his  own  reasoning  for  mine, 
and  what  is  still  more  culpable,  is  equally  unceremo- 
nious with  the  ancient  Fathers.  With  a  boldness 
hitherto  unheard  of,  he  makes  them  say  what  they  do 
not  say,  and  even  the  very  opposite  to  what  they  do 
say;  yes,  the  very  opposite;  I  am  truly  sorry  to  have 
to*  reproach  him  with  such  conduct.  I  should  never 
have  expected  to  detect  such  proceedings  in  an  Eng- 
lishman. I  knew  a  great  many  during  a  residence  of 
thirteen  years  among  them;  but  I  never  met  with  one 
of  this  stamp.  The  most  intellectual  writer  may  un- 
doubtedly be  allowed  to  be  no  theologian;  but  never 
to  act  dishonourably. 

At  page  370,  Mr.  Faber  attempts  to  show  that  my 
attacks  upon  the  reformation  would  equally  fall  upon 
Christianity  itself,  and  does  not  perceive  that  his  own 
parallel  between  them  is  very  closely  allied  to  blas- 
phemy. Yet  he  knows  that  the  Christian  revelation 
came  to  us  from  heaven;  that  it  presented  itself  to  the 
world  with  proofs  of  its  divinity;  that  the  apostles, 
their  disciples  and  their  proselytes  attracted  mankind 
by  their  virtues  and  heavenly  doctrines;,  that  they  suf- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  265 

fered  with  resignation,  without  inflicting  suffering  on 
any,  that  they  shed  no  blood  but  their  own,  and  pray- 
ed for  their  persecutors;  he  knows,  in  fine,  that  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  was  by  the  command  of  God, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  Church  was  a  Work 
purely  divine.  But  what  were  the  reformers?  They 
have  answered  the  question  themselves.  Was  it — I 
will  not  say  by  the  command  of  God — but  purely  for 
his  glory  that  they  announced  their  doctrines?  "This 
quarrel  did  not  begin  for  the  honour  of  God;  nor  will 
it  end  by  it,"  said  Luther  on  one  occasion.*  Did  they 
bear  contradictions  with  Christian  humility,  and  pray 
for  those,  who  condemned  their  preaching?  Luther 
exhausted  his  threats  and  imprecations  against  the 
holy  see  and  the  Church  in  communion  with  Romef. 
Calvin  called  those  monsters  who  opposed  his  doc- 
trines, and  wished  them  to  be  treated  as  he  had  treat- 
ed Servetus.f  Zwinglius  at  the  head  of  his  troops 
received  that  death  which  he  would  have  dealt  upon 
his  enemies.     And  what  was  the  tendency  of  their 

*  At  the  dispute  at  Leipzig,  in  1519,  by  order  of  Prince  George  of 
Saxony,  between  Eckins  of  Ingolstatt,  Carlostadt  and  Luther.  See 
Hist,  of  70  years,  dating  from  1500,  by  Laurence  Surius,  the  Carthu- 
sian translated  by  Estourmeaux.  2d  edit.  1572;  Paris.  Emser  an 
auricular  witness  reproached  Luther  with  this,  and  he  did  no  de- 
ny it. 

f  "By  my  hand  his  death-blow  shall  be  given,"  Luther  wrote  in 
1520;  "my  doctrine  shall  prevail,  and  the  Pope  shall  fall. — He 
has  refused  peace,  therefore  he  shall  have  war;  we  shall  see  who 
will  be  tired  first,  the  Pope  or  Luther  ....  Let  us  assail,  assail 
with  all  sorts  of  arms  which  wc  can  devise,  this  master  of  perdi- 
tion, these  Popes,  cardinals  and.  all  this  Roman  rabble  of  ordure: 
let  us  wash  our  hands  in  their  blood.'''' — And  in  his  epistle  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Strasbourg  he  testifies,  that  he  did  not  engage  so  deeply  in 
this  quarrel  for  the  love  of  Christ,  but  through  his  hatred  of  the 
Pope,  against  whom  he  proclaims  a  war  of  fire  and  blood." 

J  Call  to  mind  here  his  letter  to  the  Marquis  of  Poet,  quoted 
already. — "Calvini  discipuli,  ubicunque  invaluerunt,  imperia  tur- 
bavere:,;  says  Grotius  against  Rivet.  "Calvanism  must  necessarily 
produce  civil  wars,  and  shake  the  foundations  of  states  ....  there 
is  no  country  where  the  religions  of  Luther  and  Calvin  have  ap- 
peared, without  causing  an  effusion  of  blood."  Voltaire  Siecle  de 
Louis  XIV.  ch.  33. 

23* 


266  ANSWER  TO  THE 

principles?  To  ruin  our  mysteries,  and  overturn  reli- 
gion* Wljo  then  was  the  real  instigator  of  the  refor- 
mation, and  whose  work  must  we  all  call  it?  I  leave 
you  to  answer. 

THE  INQUISITION. 

L1V.  I  know  nothing  worse  than  a  man  of  genius 
without  good  faith:  he  poisons  what  lie  touches  at 
pleasure,  and  presents  to  his  readers,  under  the  at- 
tractive air  of  truth,  what  he  knows  himself  to  be  false. 
How  often  has  it  pained  me  to  apply  this  reflection  to 
the  Rector  of  Long  Newton?  He  undertakes  at  p. 
372,  No.  II.  to  represent  me  to  his  countrymen  as  a 
friend  and  partisan  of  the  inquisition;  and  that  they 
may  not  doubt  his  sincerity,  he  appears  to  translate  a 
note  which  I  beseech  you  to  read  in  my  2d.  vol.  p  p. 
416,  417.  He  suppresses  and  adds,  as  he  pleases,  so 
that  the  words  which  he  attributes  to  me  express  suffi- 
ciently well  the  very  opposite  to  what  I  declared.  "I  do 
not  undertake,"  said  I  at  the  beginning,  "to  justify  the 
tribunals  of  the  "inquisition  in  theory  and  principle." 
He  certainly  read  this  first  sentence  carefully,  because 
he  has  taken  good  care  to  suppress  it;  and  although  I 
there  give  notice  that  I  am  not  going  to  defend  the  in- 
quisition, he  represents  me  as  its  defender.  "They 
are  accused  (and  would  to  God  it  were  with  less 

•"From  thy  doctrine  and  that  of  all  thy  accomplices  and  follow- 
ers, all  the  condemned  heresies  receive,  and  the  whole  service  of 
God  is  repudiated.  At  what  period  were  there  ever  more  sacri- 
leges of  men  consecrated  to  God,  than  under  thy  gospel?  When 
was  rebellion  against  the  magistracy  more  frequent  than  during 
thy  gospel?  When  have  there  been  seen  more  pillage  of  churches, 
more  larceny  and  robbery?  At  what  time  had  Wittemberg  more 
unfrocked  monks  than  at  present?  When  were  wives  taken  from 
their  husbands  to  be  given  to  others,  as  under  thy  gospel?  When 
did  men  commit  more  adulteries,  than  since  thou  wrotest  that  if  a 
man  can  hope  for  no  issue  by  his  wife,  he  may  take  another,  and 
that  her  husband  is  obliged  to  support  the  offspring  which  may 
follow;  and  that  a  woman  may  act  the  same  in  the  like  case,  &c 
&c."    Reply  of  Prince  George  of  Saxony  to  Luther  in  1526. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM-  267 

reason!)  of  having  carried  severity  to  injustice  and 
cruelty!"  Is  this  the  exclamation  of  a  man  applauding 
the  severities,  the  injustice  and  cruelty  of  those  tribu- 
nals, or  of  one  deeply  lamenting  them?  Is  it  taking  up 
their  defence  to  consider  them  in  such  a  light?  Or  is 
it  not  rather  condemning  them  with  feelings  of  pain 
and  disapprobation?  "Why  did  they  not  imitate  those 
of  Italy? — Without  defiling  themselves  with  innocent 
blood,  they  would  have  obtained  the  success  which  sover- 
eigns expected  from  their  vigilance.'*''  The  Rector  read 
this  sentence,  and  suppresses  it!  But  is  it  defending 
the  Spanish  inquisition,  to  reproach  it  as  I  have  done 
above?  Could  Mr.  Faber  have  expressed  his  disap- 
probation more  forcibly  than  I  have  done  by  those 
words  which  he  has  purposely  suppressed;  "without 
defiling  themselves  with  innocent  blood?"  After  observ- 
ing with  writers  worthy  of  credit  that  the  number  of 
innocent  victims  had  been  much  exaggerated,  I  add: 
"had  this  not. been  the  case,  Spain,  while  she  re- 
proached herself  with  all  these  cruel  and  unjust  execu- 
tions, would  not  have  to  regret  the  lot  of  other  states, 
where  religious  wars  have  shed  a  deluge  of  human 
blood,  &c."  The  Rector  makes  me  say:  "But  Spain, 
blessed  with  the  inquisition,  has  been  happily  exempt." 
This  little  interpolation  is  very  ingeniously  put  in,  to 
keep  in  countenance  the  accusation,  which  the  Bachelor 
wishes  to  bring  against  me,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
stand  as  evidence  of  his  own  candour. 

He  would  have  me  clearly  point  out  what  I  mean 
by  innocent  and  guilty  victims.  But  surely  I  was 
nowise  obliged  to  do  this.  He  may  divide  them  as  he 
pleases;  I  have  no  objection.  The  discrimination  is 
no  part  of  my  concern:  I  am  not  writing  the  history  of 
the  inquisition.  I  gave  notice  that  I  should  defend  nei- 
ther its  tribunals,  nor  its  unjust  and  cruel  executions; 
that  I  confined  myself  to  the  consideration  of  its  gene- 
ral consequences  relative  to  the  condition  of  Spain,  as 
the  English  author  whom  I  quoted  had  done  before 


268  ANSWER  TO  THE 

me.  During  my  long  residence  in  England,  I  never 
met  with  any  man  of  information  and  good  faith,  who 
would  undertake  to  justify  the  revolution  of  1688  in 
its  principles  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  effected; 
but  I  met  many  who  rejoiced  at  its  results,  on  account 
of  the  actual  prosperity  of  the  country.  While  they 
considered  it  unjust  in  its  origin,  they  held  it  to  be  ad- 
vantageous in  its  effects.  This  is  very  much  the  view 
which  I  have  taken  of  the  inquisition,  which  by  pre- 
serving Spain  in  unity  of  faith,  has  saved  it  in  our  days 
from  certain  and  total  ruin. 

"I  may  be  mistaken;"  says  Mr.  Faber,  p.  374,  but  I 
have  always  understood,  that  the  special  object  of  the 
inquisition  was  to  take  cognizance  of  what  the  Latin 
Church  (he  means  no  doubt  the  Catholic  Church)  pro- 
nounces to  be  heresy?''  He  will  be  very  glad,  I  imagine, 
to  learn  what  we  are  informed  on  this  subject  by  a  man 
to  whom  we  may  all  refer,  the  Abbe  Fieury,  (Instit.  au 
droit  Can.  v.  2, 12mo.  p.  86,  and  90  Paris  1763.)  "The 
origin  of  the  inquisition  is  traced  up  to  Theodosius  the 
Great,  against  the  Manicheans.  His  law  of  the  year 
382  is  addressed  to  the  prefect  of  the  East.  In  1224, 
the  emperor  Frederick  2d  issued  four  edicts  with 
orders  to  the  secular  judges  to  pursue  and  punish  by 
tire  obstinate  heretics  condemned  by  the  Church  .... 
In  France,  it  began  against  the  Albigences  at  Tou- 
louse in  1229;  in  Arragon,  in  1233,  but  very  feebly, 
until  Ferdinand,  having  expelled  the  Moors,  and  wish- 
ing to  confirm  the  pretended  conversions  of  the  Moors 
and  Jews,  who  obtained  leave  to  remain  in  Spain  by 
becoming  Christians,  solicited  of  Pope  Sixtus  IV.  in 
1483,  a  bull  to  nominate  Cardinal  Turre-cremata 
grand  inquisitor  and  president  of  the  council  of  the 
inquisition  ....  It  is  this  council  which  makes  regula- 
tions, decides  differences  between  particular  inquisi- 
tions, punishes  their  faults  and  those  of  the  inferior 
ministers,  and  receives  all  appeals.  This  council  is 
exclusively  dependent  on  the  king." 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  269 

Were  I  a  member  of  the  Spanish  Church,  which 
Mr.  Faber  is  so  zealous  in  stigmatizing,  I  should  ad- 
dress him  thus:  uBe  so  good  sir,  as  to  look  a  little 
more  at  home.  Think  of  the  pious  and  illustrious 
foundress  of  your  Church  by  law  established,  to  the  su- 
preme governess  in  things  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal: 
think  of  the  mild  and  gentle  laws,' which  she  published 
against  such  of  her  subjects  as  would  not  join  her  in 
renouncing  the  religion  of  their  fathers:  think  of  the 
searches,  the  domiciliary  visits,  made  by  her  orders  to 
discover  the  smallest  traces  of  the  Catholic  worship 
and  ministry;  of  the  savage  cruelty  with  which  the 
priests  were  pursued,  of  the  barbarous  joy  even  in  the 
capital  when  any  had  been  discovered  under  their  dis- 
guise, or  in  their  secret  hiding-places.  Think  of  the 
instruments  of  torture,  which  awaited  them  in  their  pri- 
sons, and  the  ingeniously  contrived  machines*  employ- 

*  Atrociora  poenaruin  ingenia."  Tertull.  de  rcsur.  carnis.  c.  9. 
The  following  were  the  kinds  of  torture  chiefly  employed  in 
the  Tower. 

1.  The  rack  was  a  large  open  frame  of  oak,  raised  three  feet 
from  the  ground.  The  prisoner  was  laid  under  it,  on  his  back, 
on  the  floor:  his  wrists  and  ancles  were  attached  by  cords  to  two 
rollers  at  the  ends  of  the  frame:  these  were  moved  by  levers  in 
opposite  directions,  till  the  body  rose  to  a  level  with  the  frame. 
Questions  were  then  put;"and,  if  the  answers  did  not  prove  satis- 
factory, the  sufferer  was  stretched  more  and  more  till  the  bones 
started  from  their  sockets. 

2.  The  scavenger's  daughter  was  a  hoop  of  iron,  so  called,  con- 
sisting of  two  parts,  fastened  to  each  other  by  a  hinge.  The  pri- 
soner was  made  to  kneel  on  the  pavement,  and  to  contract  himself 
into  as  small  a  compass  as  he  could.  Then  the  executioner, 
kneeling  on  his  shoulders,  and  having  introduced  the  hoop  under 
his  legs,  compressed  the  victim  close  together  till  he  was  able  to 
fasten  the  extremities  over  the  small  of  his  back.  The  time  al- 
lotted for  this  kind  of  torture  was  an  hour  and  a  half,  during 
which  time  it  commonly  happened  that  from  excess  of  compres- 
sion the  blood  started  from  the  nostrils;  sometimes,  it  was  believed 
from  the  extremities  of  the  hands  and  feet.     See  Bartoli,  250. 

3.  Iron  gauntlets,  which  could  be  contracted  by  the  aid  of  a 
screw.  They  served  to  compress  the  wrists,  and  to  suspend  the 
prisoner  in  the  air,  from  two  distant  points  of  a  beam.    He  was 


270  ANSWER  TO  THE 

ed  with  cold  ferocity  to  punish  them.  Think  of  the 
cries  of  pain,  the  lengthened  groans  of  innocent  and  re- 
signed victims;  of  the  streams  of  blood,  which  gushed 
out  beneath  the  pressure  of  iron,  from  their  dislocated 
members;  and  after  those  horrible  tortures,  think  of, the 
execution  which  terminated  their  martyrdom  and  ffaeir 
life;  when  they  were  dragged  from  prison  to  the  place 
of  execution,  and  the  hangman  after  letting  them  hang 

placed  on  three  pieces  of  wood,  piled  one  on  the  other,  which, 
when  his  hands  had  been  made  fast,  were  successively  withdrawn 
from  under  his  feet.  "I  felt,"  says  F.  Gerard,  one  of  the  suffer- 
ers, "the  chief  pain  in  my  breast,  belly,  arms  and  hands.  I 
thought  that  all  the  blood  in  my  body  had  run  into  my  arms,  and 
began  to  burst  out  of  my  finger  ends.  This  was  a  mistake;  but 
the  arms  swelled,  till  the  gauntlets  were  buried  within  the  flesh. 
After  being  thus  suspended  an  hour,  I  fainted:  and  when  I  came 
to  myself,  I  found  the  executioners  supporting  me  in  their  arms: 
they  replaced  the  pieces  of  wood  under  my  feet;  but  as  soon  as  I 
was  recovered,  removed  them  again.  Thus  I  continued  hanging 
for  the  space  of  five  hours,  during  which  I  fainted  eight  or  nine 
times."    Apud  Bartoli,  418. 

4.  A  fourth  kind  of  torture  was  a  cell  called  "little  ease."  It 
was  of  so  small  dimensions,  and  so  constructed,  that  the  prisoner 
could  neither  stand,  walk,  sit,  or  lie  in  it  at  full  length.  He  was 
compelled  to  draw  himself  up  in  a  squatting  posture,  and  so  re- 
mained during  several  days. 

I  will  add  a  few  lines  from  Rishton's  Diary,  that  the  reader 
may  form  some  notion  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Tower. 

Dec.  5,  1580.  Several  Catholics  were  brought  from  different 
prisons. 

Dec.  10.  Thomas  Cottam  and  Luke  Kirbye,  priests  (two  of  the 
number,)  suffered  compression  in  the  scavenger's  daughter  for 
more  than  an  hour.     Cottam  bled  profusely  from  the  nose. 

Dec.  15.  Ralph  Sherwine  and  Robert  Johnson,  priests,  were 
severely  tortured  on  the  rack. 

Dec.  16.  Ralph  Sherwine  was  tortured  a  second  time  on  the 
rack. 

Dec.  31.  John  Hart,  after  being  chained  five  days  to  the  floor, 
was  led  to  the  rack.     Also,  Henry  Orton,  a  lay  gentleman. 

1581,  Jan.  3.  Christopher  Thompson,  an  aged  priest,  was  brought 
to  the  Tower,  and  racked  the  same  day. 

Jan.  14.  Nicholas  Roscaroc,  a  lay  gentleman,  was  racked. 

Thu9  he  continues  till  June  21,  1585,  when  he  was  discharged. 
See  his  Diarium,at  the  end  of  his  edition  of  Sanders.  Rev.  Dr. 
LingariTs  History  of  England,  vol.  viii.  8vo.  Note  U.  p.  521. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  271 

a  moment  on  the  gallows,  cut  them  down  while  still 
alive,  opened  their  bodies,  tore  out  their  palpitating 
bowels  and  threw  them  into  a  cauldron  in  the  sight  and 
amid  the  furious  acclamations  of  an  exulting  populace. 
Read  the  history  of  this  period  so  faithfully  written  by 
your  immortal  Lingard,  whom  you  have  reason  to 
place  at  the  head  of  your  historians;  or  in  the  Memoirs 
of  Missionary  priests  by  the  venerable  Challoner. 
Come,  sir,  read  these  works,  and  be  in  future  at  least  a 
little  more  reserved  in  your  declarations  against  for- 
eigners. But  no;  rather  unite  with  me  in  drawing  a 
veil  over  these  scenes  of  horror;  let  us  sigh  over  our 
ages  of  barbarism,  and  the  errors  of  human  nature. 
Where  is  the  nation  that  has  not  had  to  lament  her  own 
share  of  them?  The  inquisition  of  France  after  being 
softened  down  for  a  long  time,  disappeared  altogether. 
Your  own  has  much  relaxed  in  rigour  of  late  years:  let 
it  then  disappear  entirely;  and  restore  to  repose,  to 
happiness  and  to  their  country  eight  millions  of  your 
fellow-subjects,  whom  you  have  deprived  of  these 
blessings  for  near  three  centuries,  for  no  other  crime 
than  their  unshaken  devotedness  to  the  religion  of  your 
fore-fathers. 

INTOLERANCE. 

LV. — In  the  last  article,  and  in  twenty  others  before 
it,  you  must,  sir,  have  admired  the  dexterity  with 
which  Mr.  Faber  changes,  turns  and  distorts  my  ex- 
pressions, gives  them  any  sense  he  pleases,  and  sub- 
stitutes for  what  I  say,  what  he  wishes  to  make  me  say. 
He  possesses  this  art  in  a  superior  degree:  I  cannot 
cease  to  wonder  at  it,  for  never  should  I  have  looked 
for  such  a  talent  in  England;  and  I  am  willing  to  believe 
that  you  could  not  find  such  another  specimen  in  your 
country.  In  the  concluding  pages  of  his  book  par- 
ticularly he  quite  surpasses  himself.  For  instance,  he 
has  chosen  to  exhibit  me  to  his  countrymen  as  intole- 


272  ANSWER  TO  THE 

rant;  and  you  shall  see  how  he  proceeds;  p.  378.  "The 
bishop  having  thus  censured  the  reformation  and  vin- 
dicated the  inquisition,  nothing  more  was  wanting  to  the 
rotundity  of  his  system  than  that  he  should  bear  his 
testimony  against  freedom  of  religious  worship."  And 
then  he  goes  on  with  an  air  of  great  seriousness  and  in 
a  very  angry  manner  to  refute  an  opinion  which  he  at- 
tributes to  me  without  the  least  reason  upon  earth.  For 
he  well  knows  in  soul  and  conscience,  that  I  do  not 
say  a  syllable  about  "freedom  of  religious  worship;" 
so  far  am  I  from  imputing  it  as  a  "crying  abomination" 
to  his  Church.* 

He  has  too  mnch  penetration  not  to  perceive  the 
difference  between  this  sentence:  "The  adder,  which 
the  Church  thus  warms  only  for  the  purpose  of  sting- 
ing herself  to  death,  is  freedom  of  religious  wor- 
ship:" and  the  following:  "  I  see  that  the  Established 
Church  carries  in  her  bosom  the  principle  of  her  de- 
struction in  that  liberty  of  making  a  religion  and 
form  of  worship  for  themselves,  which  she  can- 
not now  deny  to  any,  after  claiming  it  herself."  The 
latter  sentence  is  mine;  the  former  belongs  to  Mr. 
Faber,  who  artfully  substitutes  it  for  mine,  that  he  may 
ground  an  accusation  against  me.  But  let  me  beg  of 
him  to  take  back  his  own;  I  have  certainly  no  wish  to 
deprive  him  of  his  property.  I  much  doubt  however, 
if  his  cunning  will  do  him  any  honour  in  your  eyes,  and 
before  a  nation  so  universally  upright  and  generous  as 
his  own. 

Mr.  Faber  very  loudly  proclaims  the  tolerance  of 
his  Church.  It  is  true  that  it  extends  far  to  those 
sects  which  like  that  Church  herself  have  proceeded 
from  the  fundamental  principle  of  preferring  private 
interpretation  to  the  authority  of  the  universal  Church; 
a  principle,  which  I  have  designated  as  the  cause  of 

•  See  Discussion  Amkule,  vol.  ii.  pp.  409,  410,  and  vol.  i.  pp. 
149, 150, 162, 163. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  273 

inevitable  destruction  to  your  Church.  But  even  to 
the  present  day  her  tolerance  has  been  little  better 
than  a  name  towards  Catholics,  that  heroic  race  of 
confessors  of  the  faith,  who  for  three  centuries  have 
suffered  so  many  evils  from  father  to  son,  and  still  en- 
dure so  many  privations  for  having  constantly  refused 
to  sacrifice  unity  to  the  anti-christian  principle  of 
schism  and  divisions.  Even  when  in  1791  the  Eng- 
lish government  was  willing  to  allow  them  to  celebrate 
their  worship  with  open  doors,  it  took  care  to  punish 
them  another  way,  by  a  refusal  indefinitely  prolonged 
to  restore  their  ancient  civil  and  political  rights.  Has 
my  own  country,  France,  though  represented  as  so 
intolerant  by  Mr.  Faber,  thus  treated,  or  does  it  thus 
treat  its  Protestant  subjects?  Call  to  mind  Sully,  Tu- 
renne,  Marshal  Saxe;  and  in  our  own  days  you  will 
find  Protestants  of  various  communions  admitted  to 
every  post  in  her  army,  navy,  and  administration;  sit- 
ting in  both  chambers  of  parliament  and  even  in  the 
king's  privy-council.  If  Mr.  Faber  would  see  com- 
plete toleration,  let  him  come  over  to  France.  Truly 
it  is  something  more  than  logical  unskiifulness  to  exalt 
his  own  country  at  the  expense  of  ours,  on  the  score 
of  toleration. 

The  established  Church,  who  in  despite  of  her 
thirty-nine  articles,  royal  proclamations  and  acts  of 
parliament,  cannot  prevent  sects  from  swarming  around 
her  to  her  own  cost,  can  claim  no  merit  for  leaving 
them  freedom  of  religious  worship.  They  have 
sprung,  like  herself,  from  one  and  the  same  principle, 
though  at  various  periods.  They  form  together  one 
same  family,  and  are  all  sisters.  It  is  true  that  they 
wage  deadly  war  against  her  who  is  the  most  favoured 
and  exalted,  for  which  I  cannot  commend  them;  for  I 
dislike  hostilities,  and  above  all  intestine  hostilities. 
Yet  I  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  rights  and  titles,  which 
they  all  derive  from  one  common  origin;  they  are  such 
as  cannot  be  justly  contested  by  the  Church  by  law  estab- 
*24 


274  ANSWER  TO  THE 

lished.  They  exercise  them,  and  will  exercise  them; 
— they  undermine  her,  and  they  will  undermine  her, 
as  I  see  great  reason  to  fear;  until  they  see  her  expire 
in  the  midst  of  them  through  exhaustion  and  ina- 
nition. 

This  freedom  of  religious  worship,  which  "the 
bishop  censures  in  the  Church  of  England,"  continues 
Mr.  Faber,  "is  a  principle,  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  ever  abhorred."  It  is  written  then  that  the  Rector 
of  Long  Newton  shall  be  wrong  even  to  the  end.  Let 
him  attend  to  the  following:  "above  all  things,  never 
force  your  subjects  to  change  their  religion.  No 
human  power  can  force  the  impenetrable  intrenchment 
of  liberty  of  heart.  Compulsion  can  never  persuade 
men;  it  only  makes  hypocrites.  When  kings  interfere 
with  religion,  instead  of  protecting,  they  enslave  it. 
Grant  to  all  civil  toleration;  not  approving  all  as  indif- 
ferent, but  suffering  with  patience  what  God  permits, 
and  endeavouring  to  bring  men  back  by  gentle  persua- 
sion." This  advice  given  by  an  illustrious  Catholic 
bishop  to  the  Pretender,  son  of  James  II.  would  be 
given  at  this  day  by  the  bishops  of  France,  if  -any  oc- 
casion required  the  expression  of  their  sentiments.  I 
know  not  one  among  them  who  would  not  feel  it  an 
honour  to  subscribe  to  such  an  advice.  But  were  Mr. 
Faber  called  to  discuss  the  Catholic  question  on  the 
episcopal  bench,  would  he  adopt  the  decision  you  have 
just  read?  Would  he  express  himself  in  such  terms 
in  favour  of  his  oppressed  countrymen,  the  Catholics 
of  the  three  kingdoms?  Or  if  he  were  consulted  by 
the  bench  of  bishops  at  the  next  session,  would  he 
counsel  them  to  hold  such  language  fearlessly  in  the 
house  of  peers?  Let  his  readers  judge  by  his  Difficul- 
ties of  Romanism.  Then  let  him  no  longer  raise  a 
trophy  with  his  pretended  toleration:  but  let  him 
openly  confess  that  Protestants  have  found,  and  still 
find  from  our  bishops  that  ample  toleration,  which  the 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  275 

Catholics  have  never  yet  obtained  from  the  olergy  of 
the  Church  of  England.* 

RECAPITULATION. 

LVI. — At  length  Mr.  Faber  proceeds  to  sum  up  at 
the  end  of  his  work.  But  in  what  terms?  My  pen 
transcribes  them  with  horror  and  indignation.  The 
bishop,  says  he,  p.  382,  ''calls  upon  us  to  unite,  or 
rather  to  submit,  to  his  Church:  and  as  the  consistent 
advocate  of  that  Church,  he  vindicates  idolatry,  stig- 
matizes the  reformation,!  patronises  the  eve  of  St. 
Bartholomew,];  lays  the  blame  of  persecution  upon  the 
persecuted,  ....  and  censures  freedom  of  religious 
worship."  There  is  not  one  of  these  lines  which  does 
not  contain  a  most  splendid  falsehood.  Every  one  of 
these  accusations  is  diametrically  opposite  to  my  prin- 
ciples, sentiments  and  expressions.  In  truth  it  is  a 
cruel  thing  to  be  thus  depicted  in  such  odious  colours 
before  a  nation  which  I  honour,  and  from  which  I 
ever  received  marks  of  esteem,  protection,  and  bounty. 

*  Many  affect  to  apprehend  what  the  Catholics  would  do,  if 
they  were  once  emancipated.  Independent  of  their  protestations 
so  often  and  solemnly  repeated  on  this  head,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive what  great  influence  or  authority  they  could  derive  from 
emancipation.  But  if  you  really  wish  to  be  more  secure  from 
their  future  dispositions,  I  say,  prove  yourselves  just  towards  them 
in  the  first  place;  restore  their  rights  which  you  have  so  long  with- 
held. Then  be  generous,  and  make  them  some  amends  for  the 
past.  You  will  have  a  far  better  hold  on  them  by  kindness  than 
by  cruelty;  you  will  bind  them  in  the  bonds  of  gratitude.  It  is  of 
sovereign  efficacy  in  noble  hearts,  born  in  privation,  and  long  fed 
with  humiliation  and  bitterness. 

f  She  has  stigmatized  herself,  I  had  only  to  let  her  speak  her 
own  language. 

I  Speaking  of  calamities  which  Europe  would  never  have  known 
but  for  the  reformation,  I  said, vol.  ii.  p.  414:  "Nor  would  France 
have  had  the  shame  of  that  frightful  night  of  the  St.  Bartholo- 
mew;" and  the  charitable  Rector  of  Long  Newton  purposely  puts 
a  misconstruction  on  these  words,  to  change  an  expression  of  hor- 
ror into  an  apology  for  a  massacre  executed  under  favour  of 
darkness. 


276  ANSWER  TO  THE 

Yet  I  shall  make  but  one  reply  to  the  calumnies  of  Mr. 
Faber;  it  shall  be  briefly  this:  I  beseech  his  readers 
and  mine  to  forgive  him,  as  I  freely  forgive  him  my- 
self before  men,  and  before  God. 

CONCLUSION. 

LVII. — And  now,  sir,  I  have  finished  the  task 
which  I  undertook  at  your  solicitation.  You  are  now 
enabled  to  form  a  judgment  of  my  antagonist,  in  whom 
you  had  placed  confidence.  He  stands  before  you, 
not,  I  feel  assured,  such  as  he  at  first  appeared  in  your 
estimation,  but  such  as  he  is  in  reality.  You  will  now 
know  how  to  appreciate  his  merit  in  theological  know- 
ledge, his  veracity  in  quotation,  his  accuracy  in  reason- 
ing, his  love  of  truth,  his  inclination  for  peace,  his 
desire  of  re-union,  his  sincerity  in  praising,  and  his 
fidelity  in  accusing.  Grant  him,  if  you  will,  ease  and 
address  in  the  use  of  his  pen;  allow  him,  with  all  my 
heart,  the  skill  to  mutilate  a  passage,  to  substitute  his 
own  ideas  for  those  of  his  opponent,  and  by  this  hon- 
ourable process  to  bring  odium  against  his  person,  and 
deprive  him  of  the  estimation  of  the  public;  and  in  fine, 
the  art  of  colouring  falsehood  and  decorating  error 
with  the  ornaments  of  truth.  Add  to  these,  if  you 
will  an  affectation  of  candour  even  at  the  moment  when 
he  himself  disregards  it;  a  habit  of  disguising  a  pre- 
meditated insult  by  empty  compliment;  assurance  in 
his  pretensions,  and  a  tone  of  decision  in  assertions 
of  the  most  palpable  mendacity.  This  judgment 
will  result  from  the  answer  you  have  now  read;  and 
I  do  not  conceive  it  possible  to  allow  him  any  other 
merit,  without  attributing  what  does  not  belong  to  him.* 

Nevertheless  I  beseech  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  I 
only  speak  of  the  writer,  and  not  of  the  person:  it  is  only 
my  province  to  judge  of  the  author  of  the  Difficulties  of 

*  I  am  sometimes  tempted  to  think  that  he  has  served   an  ap- 
prenticeship in  the  school  of  Voltaire. 


iDIFFICULTIBS  OF  ROMANISM.  277 

Romanism,  and  by  no  means  of  the  reverend  pastor  of 
Long  Newton,  to  whom  I  am  far  from  wishing  to  deny 
pastoral  and  affectionate  zeal,  and  every  amiable  and 
social  quality.  But  why  have  I  not  the  same  happiness 
as  his  parishioners,  that  of  finding  these  in  his  book,  as 
they  may  enjoy  them  in  his  discourses,  and  to  observe 
that  sincere  and  tender  interest  for  the  Mother-Church, 
which  he,  no  doubt,  testifies  for  his  Church  at  Long 
Newton!  Perhaps  in  writing  for  his  cause,  he  may 
have  thought  it  a  duty  to  dissemble  his  real  sentiments 
on  the  solidity  of  my  proofs.  Can  he  have  so  far 
honoured  the  Discussion  Amicale,  as  to  consider  it 
dangerous  to  his  party,  and  therefore  conclude  that  it 
was  necessary  to  discredit  the  work  and  its  author  in 
public  opinion? 

However  this  may  be,  I  found  myself  compelled  in 
my  reply  to  defend  the  Catholic  doctrine  against  his 
unjuSt  attacks:and  this  could  not  be  done  without  pro- 
ducing his  false  allegations,  unfaithful  quotations,  false 
reasoning,  cunning  and  unworthy  artifices.     Why  did 
he  stoop  to  employ  them?   I  have  been  obliged,  against 
my  inclination,  to  exhibit  them  in  open  day.     But  I 
have  discharged  this  painful  duty  without  passion  or 
animosity;  rather  indeed  with  an  uniform  feeling  of 
pity.     How  much  has  my  patience  been  tried? — the 
whole  task  appeared  to  me  ungrateful  and  revolting? 
I  have  endured  it  once,  disgusting  as  it  was;  but  I 
could  not  support  it  a  second  time.     And  I  declare  be- 
forehand that  let  him  write  henceforth  what  he  pleases, 
I  shall  not  read  a  line  of  his  production.     I  have  taken 
advantage  of  the  opportunity  which  he  has  afforded 
me,  and  have  proved  the  errors  of  his  creed,  and  the 
apostolicity  of  ours.     I  have  insisted  more  plainly  and 
forcibly  upon  our  Eucharistic  dogmas,  because,  he 
represented  them  as  the  principal  subject  of  division 
between  us.     From  the  conformity  of  our  faith  with 
that  of  the  primitive  ages  you  must  have  concluded 
the  doctrine  of  your  Church  is  essentially  opposed  to 
♦24 


278  ANSWER  TO  THE 

that  of  the  primitive  Church,  to  that  of  the  apostles, 
and  of  Jesus  Christ. 

LVIII. — Well  then,  you  may  say  then,  what  am  I  to 
do,  and  all  those  of  my  communion,  who  value,  above 
every  thing  else,  the  salvation  of  their  souls?  I  will 
answer  you  candidly  and  with  perfect  conviction. 
Had  there  existed  a  single  reason  to  justify  the  sepa- 
tion  in  the  sixteenth  century,  or  did  there  exist  one  to 
justify  the  actual  separation  and  schism  of  the  various 
societies  of  Protestants,  I  should  say  to  you — remain 
in  your  own.  But  I  say — not  only  do  I  know  of  none, 
but  I  see  most  clearly  there  could  have  existed  none. 
Bring  together  all  the  writings  published  by  the  re- 
formed communions  for  these  three  centuries;  congre- 
gate all  the  enlightened  men  who  exist  in  these  com- 
munions; you  will  never  extract  from  either  any  one 
available  and  peremptory  cause,  to  authorize  at  the 
time  the  original  schism,  or  its  continuation  in  our  Tlays. 
Therefore,  sir,  go  out  from  it.  You  are  now  too  well 
admonished,  and  too  enlightened  to  be  excusable  if 
you  continue  therein.  With  great  reason  do  you  at- 
tach the  highest  importance  to  the  salvation  of  your 
soul.  Well,  sir,  I  declare  to  you  distinctly,  that  you 
must  secure  its  salvation  in  unity,  in  the  Mother  Church, 
the  faithful  guardian  of  the  primitive  faith,  the  sole 
heiress  of  the  promises,  ever  pure  in  her  doctrine,  in- 
corruptible in  her  dogmas,  and  pious  in  her  worship. 
If  you  have  detected  some  abuses  in  her  children; — 
and  where  will  not  some  abuses  be  found? — be  assured 
that  if  they  were  pernicious,  she  herself  would  be 
the  first  to  condemn  them;  if  not  pernicious,  she 
tolerates  them  for  the  sake  of  peace.  Do  you  in 
like  manner,  and  do  not  imagine  it  obligatory  to  ob- 
serve certain  minute  practices,  which  she  never  com- 
manded, but  which  she  suffers  without  either  approv- 
ing or  prohibiting  them.  Do  not  suffer  yourself  to 
be  withheld  by  such  unimportant  matters;  look  to 
what  is  essential.     Return  to  unity:  for  without  that 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ROMANISM.  279 

even  martyrdom  would  not  save  you. — Believe  me, 
sir,  vou  have  no  room  for  hesitation.  Were  I  to 
hold  a  different  language,  I  should  belie  my  own  con- 
science, and  deceive  yours. 

LIX.  But,  sir,  I  am  far  from  requiring  you  to  de- 
pend solely  on  my  opinion.  I  am  prepared  to  offer 
you,  if  you  please,  authorities  more  worthy  of  your 
regard  and  better  calculated  to  bring  you  to  a  determi- 
nation. I  will  choose  them  from  the  very  bosom  of  the 
Reformation.  I  know  of  none  that  can  be  opposed, 
on  the  questions  of  which  we  treat,  to  Grotius  and 
Leibnitz,  the  honour  and  admiration  of  their  age,  as 
they  are  of  our  own,  and  will  be  of  posterity.  You 
may  absolutely  consider  them  as  the  two  wisest  heads 
of  Protestantism.  Educated  in  the  prejudices  of  their 
Communions,  attached  for  a  length  of  years,  the  for- 
mer to  Calvanistic  oppinions,  the  latter  to  those  of  the 
Lutherans,  they  emancipated  themselves  by  the  force 
of  genius.  The  one  was  long  engaged  in  the  warmth 
of  religious  disputation,  the  other  in  grave  theological 
discussions;  both  made  controverted  points  their  pro- 
found study,  looking  with  a  curious  and  penetrating 
eye  into  Christian  antiquity;  and  both  ended  by  erect- 
ing immortal  monuments  to  the  truth  of  our  doctrines. 
In  his  Votum  pro  pace ,  the  last  of  his  polemic  produc- 
tions, the  incomparable  Grotius  concludes  on  every 
article  which  divides  us,  in  favour  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine:  and  Leibnitz  in  his  admirable  Systema  Theo- 
logies, the  fruit  of  thirty  years  of  research  and  reflec- 
tion as  he  himself  wrote  to  his  intimate  friends,  proves 
and  establishes  the  Catholic  faith  on  the  same  subjects, 
with  a  degree  of  erudition,  depth,  and  accuracy  which 
could  only  have  belonged  to  himself  or  Bossuet.  Af- 
ter these  illustrious  defenders  furnished  even  by  the 
Reformation  to  the  Catholic  Church,  no  more  human 
authorities  need  be  investigated.  Where  could  you 
find  any  to  outbalance  these  two  men  of  transcendant 
genius?     Go  then  and  stand  by  their  side:  think  as  they 


280  ANSWER,  &c. 

thought;  believe  as  they  believed;  and  more  happy 
than  either  of  them,  begin  to  practise  before  death 
overtakes  you. 

This  is  not  my  counsel  alone,  though  in  perfect  con- 
formity with  mv  principles.  It  comes  to  you  even 
from  another  Protestant,  very  celebrated  in  these 
latter  times,  and  worthy  to  walk,  though  at  a  great 
distance,  in  the  train  of  the  two  preceding.  "Since  it 
is  impossible,"  says  the  Baron  de  Starck,  "to  extricate 
Protestantism  from  its  ruins,  as  I  have  demonstrated, 
what  will  remain  for  those,  who  have  preserved  any 
attachment  to  Christianity  ....  but  to  re-unite  with  the 
Catholic  Church,  which,  as  even  Protestants  acknow- 
ledge, is  the  preserver  of  the  principal  and  fundamen- 
tal truths  of  Christianity?  This  Christianity  being 
totally  destroyed  among  Protestants,  those  who  still 
love  and  desire  it,  are  absolutely  obliged  to  seek  it  in 
the  only  asylum  where  they  are  still  sure  of  finding  it."* 

*  Entretiens  Philosophiques  sur  la  Reunion  des  differentes  Commu- 
nions Chreliennes;  p.  286,  of  De  Kentz'  French  Translation,  and 
p.  220,  of  the  Original  German. 


THE    END. 


CATHOLIC  BOOKS 

Published  and  for  sale  by 

F.  LUCAS,  JR. 

1\T0.  133  MARKET  STREET, 

iStTlttmorc. 


THE  CATHOLIC  MANUAL,  containing  a  selection 
of  Prayers  and  Devotional  Exercises,  for  the  use  of  Chris- 
tians in  every  state  of  life. 

"Aslc  and  it  shall  be  given  rjou." — Matthew  vii.  7. 

Price,  neatly  bound  in  sheep,  $1. 

This  popular  manual  was  prepared  by  the  direction,  and  under 
the  superintendance  of  the  late  Archbishop  Marechal.  It  is  print- 
ed with  accuracy  and  elegance,  and  embellished  with  four  engrav- 
ings; among  which,  is  one  giving  a  view  of  the  grand  altar  of  the 
Cathedral;  and  another,  of  the  admired  picture  of  the  "Descent 
from  the  Cross,"  which  was  presented  to  the  Cathedral  by  Louis 
XVI. 

THE  CHRISTIAN'S  GUIDE  TO  HEAVEN;  a  Manu- 
al for  Catholics;  with  the  evening  Office  of  the  Church, 
in  Latin  and  English;  and  a  selection  of  Pious  Hymns — 
embellished  with  six  beautiful  engravings. 

Price  62§  cents,  in  neat  plain  binding. 

This  prayer  book  was  compiled  under  the  inspection  of  Archbi- 
shop Carroll.  The  present  edition  has  been  much  improved,  by  a 
difference  of  arrangement  in  part  of  the  contents,  as  well  as  by  the 
correction  of  many  errors  that  had  crept  into  former  editions,  and 
also  by  some  additional  matter;  and  may  now  be  fairly  estimated 
as  a  most  perfect  pocket  manual  for  Catholics. 

THE  PATH  OF  PARADISE;  a  selection  of  Prayers 
and  Devotions  for  Catholics — embellished  with  five  beau- 
tiful engravings. 

"0/  praise  ye  the  Lord,  for  he  is  good;  for  his  mercy  endureth  for- 
ever."— Psalm  cxvii.  29. 

Price  374  cents  per  copy,  in  sheep  binding,  lettered. 


2 

This  neat  little  pocket  volume,  as  it  may  be  truly  so  called,  has 
been  compiled  with  great  care.  Independently  of  its  convenient 
form,  it  will  be  found  to  combine  a  judicious  selection  of  matter, 
withb«auty  of  execution  and  cheapness  of  price. 

THE  SOUL  UNITED  TO  JESUS  in  his  adorable  sa- 
crament; or,  a  Devout  Method  of  Hearing  Mass  before 
and  after  Communion,  &c. 

Price  374  cents,  neatly  bound  in  sheep. 

This  very  excellent  little  work  is  printed  on  beautiful  paper, 
and  makes  a  volume  of  the  same  size  as  the  "Path  to  Paradise," 
and  is  recommended  to  the  pious  a3  worthy  of  their  acceptance. 

THE  PIOUS  GUIDE  TO  PRAYER  AND  DEVO- 
TION; containing  various  practices  of  Piety,  calculated 
to  answer  the  demands  of  the  devout  members  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church;  embellished  with  neat  engrav- 
ings. 

"Let  my  prayer  be  directed  as  incense  in  thy  sig-M." 

Psalm  cxi.  2. 
Price  75  cents,  in  neat  sheep  binding. 

TRUE  PIETY;  or,  The  Day  well  spent;  a  manual  of 
fervent  Prayers,  pious  reflections,  and  pious  instructions, 
calculated  to  answer  the  use  of  the  members  of  all  ranks 
and  conditions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  embel- 
lished with  engravings. 

"Ask  and  you  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  complete. ," 

John  vi.  24. 
Price  75  cents,  in  neat  sheep  binding,  lettered. 

A  SHORT  CATECHISM  for  the  use  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America — published  with 
the  approbation  of  the  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  Marechal. 

Price  6i  cents  single — by  the  gross  $4.50. 

A  CATECHISM  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
FAITH;  published  for  the  use  of  Young  Children,  Ser- 
vants and  others  of  small  capacities  or  limited  time,  in 
his  diocess — by  the  Rt  Rev.  John  England,  Bishop  of 
Charleston. 

Price  6i  cents  single — by  the  gross,  $4.50. 


THE  MOST  REV.  DR.  JAMES  BUTLER'S  CATE- 
CHISM; enlarged,  improved,  and  recommended  by  the 
four  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  of  Ireland. 

Price  9  cents  single — $6.00  per  gross. 

A  COMPARATIVE  VIEW  OF  THE  GROUNDS  OF 
THE  CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES 
— by  the  Rev.  John  Fletcher,  D.  D. 

"Look  at  the  rock  from  ivhich  you 
"have  separated.'1'' — Isaiah. 

Price  $1,  in  neat  plain  sheep. 

FATHER  ROWLAND,  a  North  American  Tale. 

"Who  would  and  then  fairly  represent 
"Must  study  well  his  character  and  manners." 

Price  50  cents,  in  extra  boards. 

THE  FOLLOWING  OF  CHRIST,  in  four  books— 
by  Thomas  A.  Kempis,  with  reflections  at  the  conclusion 
of  each  chapter,  by  the  Abbe  F.  de  la  Mennais,  translated 
from  the  French  for  this  edition. 

Price,  neatly  bound  in  sheep,  87  i  cents. 

It  were  superfluous  to  bestow  commendations  on  the  "Following 
of  Christ."  We  shall  merely  mention  that  the  notes  of  the  Abbe 
de  la  Mennais,  have  been  translated  expressly  for  this  edition. 
The  enlightened  reader  cannot  but  be  pleased  to  see  with  what 
sentiments  the  perusal  of  this  inimitable  work  inspired  a  man  not 
less  venerated  for  his  piety,  than  admired  for  his  unrivalled  elo- 
quence. 

THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  WEEK,  according 
to  the  Roman  Missal  and  Breviary,  in  Latin  and  English. 
Second  American  edition. 

Price  $1,  neatly  bound  in  sheep. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  this  work  under  an  im- 
proved form;  many  inaccuracies  of  expression  have  been  corrected, 
the  translation  has  been  thoroughly  revised,  and  the  volume  re- 
duced to  a  more  convenient  size. 

THE  DEVOUT  COMMUNICANT— embellished  with 
a  neat  engraving  of  the  last  Supper,  and  also  of  the  Cruci- 
fixion—by  the  Rev.  P.  Baker,  O.  S.  F. 

Price  £2 i  cents,  in  neat  plain  binding. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  COMBAT;  to  which  is  added  the 
Peace  of  the  Soul  and  the  Happiness  of  the  Heart,  which 
dies  to  itself  in  order  to  live  to  God,  embellished  with  an 
engraved  frontispiece  of  Christ  bearing  the  cross. 
"The  life  of  man  on  earth  is  warfare.'''' — Job  vii.  1. 

Price  62  k  cents  in  sheep  binding,  lettered. 

AN  ABRIDGEMENT  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  DOC- 
TRINE—by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hay. 
Price  single  37  J  cents — by  the  dozen,  $2.50. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH— by  the  Reverend 
Charles  Constantine  Pise. 

4  vols,  boards — price  $8.     $f-  Vol.  5  is  in  press. 

THE  LENTEN  MONITOR— by  the  Rev.  P.  Baker. 
"Behold,  now  is  the  acceptable  time — now  is  the  day  of  salvation.'''' 

2  Cor.  vi.  8. 
Price  $1,  bound  in  sheep. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  ^PROTESTANT  "REFOR- 
MATION" IN  ENGLAND  AND  IRELAND. 

lvol.  12mo.  neatly  bound  in  sheep — price  62£  cents. 

A  DEFENCE  OF  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

Price  37£  cents,  in  half  binding. 

THINK  WELL  ON'T;  or,  Pious  Reflections,  &c 
Price  37i  cents,  in  neat  binding. 

PRINCE  HOHENLOE'S  PRAYER  BOOR. 

Price  75  cents — neatly  bound  in  sheep,  and  lettered. 

LETTER  TO  A  CONVERT;  to  which  is  added  A 
NET  FOR  THE  FISHER'S  OF  MEN. 
Price  25  cents,  in  sheep  filleted  binding. 

DOWAY  BIBLES,  in  4to  and  8vo. 

DOWAY  TESTAMENTS,  various  sizes  and  binding. 


In  Press,  and  will  be  soon  Published. 

AN  AMICABLE  DISCUSSION  with  the  Church  of 
England,  &c     By  the  Rev.  J.  F.  M.  Trevern,  D.  D. 
2  vols.  12mo.  neatly  bound — price  $2. 

BOURDALOUE'S  SPIRITUAL  RETREAT. 

1  vol.  18mo.  neatly  bound  in  sheep — price  75  cents. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01131   2214 


, 


